Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bradford Extension) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time tomorrow.

Astley Ainslie Institution Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Lanarkshire Traction Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),

Considered:

A Clause (Application for renewal of existing omnibus licences not to be prejudiced) — [Mr. W. Adamson] —brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 13) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

MERCANTILE MARINE (HELM ORDERS).

Sir BASIL PETO: I desire to present to this honourable House a humble Petition on behalf of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, representing nearly 5,000 masters and officers of the Merchant Service. The Petition prays this honourable House that Article 41 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1929, be not approved for ratification and be not enforced by Act of Parliament or Order in Council on board British ships.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

STATES CONTRIBUTIONS (ARREARS).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which, if any, of the member countries of the League of Nations are in arrears with payment of their quota of expenses of the League; and can he give the amounts?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply returned to a similar question put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Waterloo (Captain Bullock) on the 16th December, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether by the non-payment of expenses by certain nations our share is heavier?

Mr. HENDERSON: No, I think not.

ABYSSINIA (SLAVERY).

Mr. MANDER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is prepared to take the initiative in the Council of the League of Nations in proposing that an offer of advice, expert personnel, and trained administrators should be made to Abyssinia by the League to assist that country in carrying out its undertaking to the League to secure the complete suppression of slavery in all its forma and the slave trade by land and sea?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The Assembly of the League of Nations, in September last, instructed the Secretary-General to collect from the States Members of the League, and from all parties to the Slavery Convention, all possible information on the present position of slavery throughout the world, and to report to the next Assembly with a view to suitable action.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the fact that there are in Abyssinia still over 2,000,000 slaves, will he use the great influence of this country in some way to bring that state of affairs to an end, through the League?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, but—

Mr. DAY: Is it a fact that there are 2,000,000 slaves in Abyssinia?

COUNCIL MEETING.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is his intention to attend the meeting of the Council of the League of Nations at Geneva in January next; and what business will be before the Council on that occasion?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I propose to attend the meeting though, owing to the forthcoming Naval Conference, I may not be able to remain in Geneva until the end of the session. During the remainder of the session His Majesty's Government will be represented by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The official agenda for the forthcoming meeting of the Council has now been issued, and I will send the hon. Member a copy.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will not Lord Cecil be acting on behalf of the Government?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have already answered. I said that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will represent the Government in my absence.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the following European countries have diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government of Russia: Spain, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, YugoSlavia, Rumania, Hungary, and Bulgaria?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: As indicated in the reply which I returned on the 25th November to a question put by the hon. Member for Newcastle, North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle), diplomatic relations have not been established between the Soviet Government and the Governments of the countries enumerated by the hon. and gallant Member in the present question.

Sir A. KNOX: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the statement which he has just made is in direct contradiction to a statement made by the Government spokesman in another place?

Mr. COCKS: May I ask whether Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, Norway, Sweden and Denmark, as well as Great Britain, have diplomatic relations with Russia?

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to reconcile the divergent views of Ministers in this House and in another place?

BRITISH RELATIONS.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Soviet Ambassador has now presented his credentials; and whether he has signified agreement on behalf of his Government with the interpretation placed by the British Government on the pledge with regard to propaganda contained in Article 16 of the Treaty of the 8th August, 1924, referred to in paragraph 7 of the Protocol of the 3rd October, 1929, especially as regards the activities of the Third International?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The Soviet Ambassador has not yet presented his credentials but will, I hope, do so on the 20th December. With regard to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 16th December.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the reason for the Soviet Ambassador remaining in this country as a free lance, without presenting his credentials, seeing that he has been here for more than a week?

Mr. HENDERSON: There is nothing unusual in a new Ambassador being in this country for a week or even 10 days before presenting his credentials. I have already informed the House that the blame does not rest with him.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Has the Soviet Ambassador been informed that Parliament has not approved the resumption of diplomatic relations?

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what matters he proposes to immediately discuss with the Soviet Ambassador?

Mr. HENDERSON: The questions to be discussed are enumerated in Article 1 of the Protocol of the 3rd October.

Sir K. WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman propose to discuss with the
Soviet Ambassador immediately the grave question of religious persecution in Russia?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have nothing to add to the answer that I have given.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is going to inform the Soviet Ambassador that only the House of Commons has approved the resumption of diplomatic relations?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND RUSSIA.

Mr. MANDER: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what countries have associated themselves with the initiative of the United States of America in appealing to China and Soviet Russia to observe the obligations of the Kellogg Pact?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The French and Italian Governments have taken the same steps as were taken by the United States Government and His Majesty's Government in the matter. Replies were received by the United States Government from a number of other Governments approving the proposal made by them, but the fact that direct negotiations had been begun between the Soviet and Chinese Governments has, no doubt, made it seem unnecessary to many other Governments to follow suit.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the recent White Paper does not contain a draft treaty between this country and Egypt but only an outline of proposals, he can say whether he adheres to his statement in the Note to the Egyptian Government that these proposals represent the extreme limit of the concessions which His Majesty's Government can make?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer returned to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) on the 4th December, in which it was stated that no change had taken place in the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the proposals.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that letter contains a guarantee against a further change of policy?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the detachment for service in the Dominions of members of the Diplomatic Service, he proposes to increase the establishment of that service?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The seconding of members of the Diplomatic Service for service in the Dominions has not resulted, and will not result, in any increase in the establishment of the service. These officers are provided for in the Dominions Office Vote, and the vacancies caused by their departure were filled by successful candidates in the 1928 and 1929 examinations. In the event of any such post being suppressed its occupant would return to the Foreign Office and would be absorbed on the occurrence of a vacancy.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the increase in the work of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and considering the importance of the fishing industry, he will set up a separate department for the latter with a Minister of Fisheries?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): In the absence of the Prime Minister, I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the Prime Minister's reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) on 15th July, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many committees and commissions which have sat in the past to consider the question of the fishing industry, have recommended the setting up of such a department?

Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid I cannot add to the Prime Minister's answer.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Will the Minister convey to the right hon. Gentle-
man the Prime Minister the fact that the tendency at present is that the fishing industry should receive less consideration than it did before?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (PASSPORTS AND VISAS).

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received complaints of the treatment of British subjects in the United States of America who have outstayed the time allowed in their passports; whether he has information of the numbers of British men and women now imprisoned in the United States for infringement of passport or immigration regulations; whether he is aware that they are confined with common criminals; and whether His Majesty's Government proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No complaints have been received at the Foreign Office during the last two years from British subjects who have rendered themselves liable to deportation from the United States by outlaying the period of their temporary visitor's visa. I have no information as to the number of British subjects held for deportation in United States immigration stations or gaols, but most of these have rendered themselves liable to heavy penalties including a term of imprisonment by effecting illegal entry into the United States. If arrested in a place where there is no United States immigration station, deportees are necessarily confined in the local gaols, but I understand that ordinarily they are separated from common criminals. I am always ready to take up with the United States authorities any individual case as to which I am furnished with reliable information, and to make such representations as the merits of the case may justify.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: May I ask whether any warning is given to British subjects of the penalties they may incur if they outstay their passport permission?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am not aware that any warning is given, but I should imagine it would be stated on the passport.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENGLISH AND FOREIGN COURTS (JUDGMENTS).

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that in actions brought in other European countries on judgments obtained in English courts certain foreign courts claim the right to examine into the grounds of such judgments and do not follow the practice of the English courts in actions brought therein on judgments of foreign courts; whether there are any conventions dealing with such matters between this country and any, and, if so, which, European countries; and whether he is prepared to consider the question of making representations through the proper channels to the Governments of the countries concerned with the view of obtaining reciprocal treatment in the matter?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The matter to which the question relates has engaged the attention of my Department and of the present Lord Chancellor and his predecessor, who appointed a small committee, presided over by Lord Justice Greer, to investigate it. This committee reported that, in order to remedy the existing unsatisfactory state of affairs, it would be necessary to conclude treaties with foreign countries providing for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments, and that legislation in this country was necessary before such treaties could be concluded. The committee made certain suggestions as to the form which such legislation should take, but recommended that before any Bill was drafted preliminary discussions should take place with one or two foreign Governments, and these discussions will take place very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SINGAPORE BASE.

Mr. DAY: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the amount contributed separately by Hong Kong, Federated Malay States, and New Zealand towards the expenditure incurred with reference to the proposed naval base at Singapore; and whether any compensation has to be paid by the Government for the non-fulfilment of any contracts entered into by any previous Governments?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): The amounts contributed to date by Hong Kong, the Federated Malay States and New Zealand towards the expenditure incurred on the base at Singapore are £250,000, £1,200,000 and £250,000 respectively. Of this total of £1,700,000, £1,294,000 has been appropriated by the Admiralty in relief of expenditure falling on Navy Votes; the balance of £406,000 has been credited to Army and Air Votes in relief of expenditure falling on those Votes. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given on the 20th November (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 463) to the hon. Members for East Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville) and Kingston-upon-Thames (Sir G. Penny).

Mr. DAY: Has the hon. Member now ascertained that there is no break clause in any of the contracts made by the British Government?

Mr. AMMON: All information will be found in the replies that I have given.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: May I ask whether, in view of the answer which he has now given, it may be taken for granted that His Majesty's Government will see that these moneys are returned to the Dominions and Colonies who advanced them under false pretences. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: It rests with the hon. Member as to whether he will give an answer or not.

MERCHANT SHIPS (ASSISTANCE).

Dr. HASTINGS: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to what extent vessels under his charge gave assistance to ships of the Mercantile Marine during the recent gale; and whether he will give instructions that every possible assistance shall be given in similar circumstances?

Mr. AMMON: I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a brief record of the assistance given by His Majesty's ships to ships of the Mercantile Marine during the recent severe weather. As regards the second part of the question, it is a standing instruction that His Majesty's ships should afford every possible aid to vessels in danger or distress, and is so laid down in Article 896 of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions.

Commander SOUTHBY: Can the hon. Member tell the House whether there is any reason to suppose that this instruction is not being carried out?

Mr. AMMON: No; on the contrary, the Navy is glad and willing to give every assistance.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will not the hon. Member admit that such an instruction is quite unnecessary?

Following is the record:

24th November.

His Majesty's ship "Cambrian" on passage from Gibraltar to Plymouth in a full gale intercepted an S.O.S. from the steamship "Leonidas" and went to her assistance, which eventually was not required.

2nd December.

In response to an S.O.S. from the British steamship "Canadian Transport," His Majesty's tug "Pilot" proceeded from Portland to her assistance. The ship, however, was eventually able to avoid shipwreck unaided.

6th December.

In response to an S.O.S. from the Hungarian "Honved," His Majesty's tug "Sprite" proceeded from Portsmouth to her assistance. Later, however, a message was received that the cable ship "Telconia" was standing by and the "Sprite" was recalled.

7th December.

His Majesty's tugs "Resolve" and "Grappler" from Portsmouth went to the assistance of the Italian steamship "San Marco" which had broken from her moorings and gone ashore. She was towed off by the tugs.

His Majesty's tug "Pilot" proceeded from Portland to the assistance of a vessel reported ashore at Osmington. It was found, however, that she did not require assistance.

His Majesty's tug "Retort" from Devonport went to the assistance of steamship "Andalucia Star" which had lost her rudder. A mooring party and lighter were also held in readiness to berth the ship if required, but she was able to arrive at Falmouth safely.

His Majesty's tugs "Robust" and "St. Clears" from Sheerness went to the
assistance of the Anglo-American tanker "Ashtabula" which had gone ashore and refloated her.

8th December.

His Majesty's tug "Retort" from Devonport went to the assistance of the steamship "Tynebridge," whose steering gear was reported disabled. The "Tyne-bridge," however, succeeded in repairing her steering gear and the tug was recalled.

11th December.

His Majesty's ships "Sutton," "Vimy" and "Trinidad" were engaged for several days, in very heavy weather, in searching for nine Lowestoft fishing vessels which were long overdue. All have now returned safely.

There are also numerous instances of assistance given to barges, lighters and other small craft.

OFFICERS (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE).

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is prepared to grant allowances to married naval officers of over 30 years of age, such as are now provided for Army and Air Force officers under existing regulations?

Mr. AMMON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) on the 8th of July.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I ask whether the hon. Member recollects that a committee set up by the Admiralty reported in favour of marriage allowances for officers in the Navy; whether that proposal was not subsequently carried unanimously by this House, although it was taken away at a later date. Cannot the hon. Member see his way now to restore it?

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Will the hon. Member also remember that the provision of marriage allowances for the Navy must certainly result in reduced efficiency.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will he also remember that the Navy will be put in a very unfair position in comparison with the Army and the Air Force?

TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the question of providing adequate travelling allowances for naval personnel proceeding on leave, and also for their families, when, as the result of the exigencies of the service, they are compelled to transfer their homes from one port to another?

Mr. AMMON: I regret that it is not possible to make a contribution from public funds towards the travelling expenses of naval personnel proceeding on leave. All men of the Royal Navy participate in a concession granted by the railway companies whereby return tickets are issued for journeys on leave at the cost of a single fare and a third. Naval ratings are not compelled to transfer their homes from one port to another to meet the exigencies of the service and I am unable to entertain the suggestion that travelling expenses in such cases should be a public charge.

HOUSING SCHEME (ST. BUDEAUX).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the St. Budeaux housing scheme for dockyard and naval employés, whether he is aware of the condition of the houses and of the danger to health caused by the inadequate protection afforded by them against bad weather; and if his Department is taking any steps to safeguard the interests of the tenants, all of whom come under the aegis of his Department?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. George Hall): Certain complaints have been made unofficially, but the Admiralty have no responsibility for these houses, which were erected by the Devon port Dockyard Employés Housing Association, Limited, on land given by the Admiralty.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Member be good enough to look into this question, seeing that many employés of the Admiralty are in a very serious plight and that the medical officer of health has reported that their accommodation is not fit for habitation?

Mr. HALL: I must repeat that the Admiralty have no responsibility in the matter.

RETIRED EX-APPRENTICES.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will reconsider making A. F. O. 674a, dated 16th March, 1928, retrospective, seeing that hardship is felt by ex-apprentices who retired from the dockyard service before 31st December, 1927, and are consequently not included in the concession?

Mr. G. HALL: The answer is in the negative.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "REPULSE" (CHRISTMAS LEAVE).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty for what reason His Majesty's Ship "Repulse" is not giving Christmas leave from her home port, Sheerness; and whether, seeing that a welfare request by the lower deck that all ships should return to their home ports for leave was granted by the Admiralty, he will consider, when exceptions are by necessity made, of granting to the ship's company their going-on-leave free railway facilities to their home ports?

Mr. AMMON: With reference to the first part of the question, it was necessary for His Majesty's Ship "Repulse" to go to Portsmouth for docking and other work. In view of the uncertainty as to the date she would be able to leave Portsmouth and the very considerable amount of extra work which would have been involved in steaming the ship to Sheerness in the middle of the Christmas leave period, it was felt that it would be to the advantage of the ship's company that she should remain at Portsmouth during the whole leave period. With regard to the latter part of the question, I am not aware that any such welfare request was granted, and I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer given him on this subject on the 20th November.

MASTERS AND MATES (PAY).

Captain W. G. HALL: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the pay and conditions of masters and mates of vessels in Admiralty establishments, serving under D. 13 articles of agreement, are very much below those obtaining in vessels engaged in similar work in mercantile marine ports; and, if so, can he indicate
how soon a return will be made to the previously established policy of securing for Admiralty employés rates slightly better than those paid by the best private employers?

Mr. G. HALL: I would draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on the 11th December. The rates of pay awarded to masters and mates of yard craft are in accordance with the awards of the Industrial Court dated 16th May and 4th July, 1928, and it is not proposed to depart from these awards. The policy of the Admiralty has been to abide by the findings of the Industrial Court.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I ask whether these men were represented at the Industrial Court?

Mr. KELLY: In view of the tremendous discrepancy between the amount paid by outside employers and the Admiralty, will the hon. Member go further into the matter?

Captain W. G. HALL: Is the hon. Member aware that the men in question made many attempts to redress this grievance through the ordinary channels, and, in the light of that, cannot the Admiralty see their way to re-open the matter?

Mr. G. HALL: This matter was the subject of a decision by the Industrial Court as late as July of last year, and it is impossible for the Admiralty to interfere with a decision of the Industrial Court.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Member not aware that the men were not represented, and are not represented directly on the Whitley Council?

Mr. KELLY: Oh, yes, they are.

PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD (CHRISTMAS LEAVE).

Captain W. G. HALL: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that only 10 per cent. leave is being /granted this Christmas in the torpedo tube shop, Portsmouth dockyard; and if, as over 37 per cent, has been given in previous years, he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to increasing the percentage now allowed to something like its previous level?

Mr. G. HALL: I am unable to admit the correctness of my hon. Friend's comparison. This year, for the first time in history, six days' leave with pay has been granted to the general body of workpeople employed by the Admiralty and Boxing Day will be a holiday with pay.

Captain W. G. HALL: May I ask whether the hon. Member will have inquiry made into some of these complaints?

Mr. G. HALL: Inquiries have already been made, and, as I have stated, Boxing Day will be a holiday with pay. Last year it was not a holiday.

RESERVE FLEET, PORTSMOUTH (PAY).

Captain W. G. HALL: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of men employed in the Reserve Fleet working party, Portsmouth dockyard, who receive less than 4s. 5d. a day, the rates they receive, and the reason for the difference?

Mr. AMMON: The answer to the first part of the question is one, and to the second part 3s. a day. As regards the third part, this particular pensioner has been out of the Service for more than five years, and consequently cannot count his previous service towards progressive pay and good conduct badge pay. I may add that this payment is exclusive of victualling, accommodation, etc., which are additional.

Captain W. G. HALL: Does the hon. Gentleman think that 3s. a day is sufficient pay for a man working proper hours?

Mr. AMMON: My hon. Friend apparently did not hear the whole of the reply. There are other things that have to he taken into account, and the effect is that these men are on precisely the same footing as ordinary ratings.

EXECUTIVE MATES AND MATE ENGINEERS.

Mr. T. LEWIS: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the number of executive mates and mate engineers, respectively, who have been compulsorily retired under special retirement schemes?

Mr. AMMON: The answer is 54, including officers promoted from mate, and nil, respectively.

EXPENDITURE.

Mr. KELLY: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what would be the saving in Naval Estimates in each of the next three years if it was desided not to replace any battleships now in commission; and what would be the additional saving if half the number of battleships now in commission were scrapped?

Mr. AMMON: As the answer is somewhat long, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

As regards the first part of the question, the battleship replacement programme contained in the Washington Naval Agreement provides for two new battleships to be laid down by the British Empire in 1931 and two more in 1932. Assuming that such new battleships were to be of the maximum permissible displacement, the estimated cost would be:


in 1930
…
…
…
nil.


in 1931
…
…
…
£1,030,000


in 1932
…
…
…
£6,065,000

As regards the second part of the question the present annual cost of maintenance of eight of the 16 existing battleships is approximately £2,300,000, of which roughly £1,500,000 is for the pay, allowances, insurance, victualling, clothing, mess gear, etc., of the personnel and for non-effective liability in respect of retired pay and pensions. What would be the actual effect on Navy Estimates of the policy indicated I could not undertake to say.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

DISTURBANCES (COMPENSATION).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies by whom compensation is payable in the case of persons claiming for damages sustained in the recent disturbances in Palestine?

Mr. FOOT: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the fund out of which it is proposed to pay such compensation as may be awarded in respect of damage arising from the late disturbances in Palestine?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): I would invite reference to the
reply given on the 16th of December to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury).

Captain CROOKSHANK: I know the answer given then, but can the hon. Gentleman assure us that under no circumstances will there be any charge on the British taxpayer for this service?

Dr. SHIELS: I can only say that I do not contemplate that there will be any such charge.

JEWISH COLONIES (ARMS).

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to state whether the 16 or 17 Jewish colonies which were still in possession of their arms in sealed armouries under the colony defence scheme at the time of the recent outbreak will be allowed to retain them, at any rate until other and adequate means of defence are provided by the Administration; and whether, pending a final decision as to the means of maintaining order in Palestine, the arms will be restored to those colonies which have been deprived of them during the last five years?

Dr. SHIELS: As regards the first part of the question, so fax as I have information the colonies referred to still retain their arms. As regards the second part, I am not yet in a position to make any statement as the nature of the future defence of the colonies is at present under consideration.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman hope to be able to answer the question about this protection before the House rises?

Dr. SHIELS: I am sorry that I could not say that. I do not think it is likely.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has my hon. Friend communicated with Palestine and asked them the question by cable?

Dr. SHIELS: We are in constant communication on this and other matters.

DR. BERQOVITCH (ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION).

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give the House any account of the circumstances in which the assassination of Dr. Berqovitch
was attempted some days ago; why it was necessary for the district officer at Safed to provide a police escort, for the doctor attached to the Scottish Mission at Tiberias who was summoned to Safed to attend Dr. Berqovitch, and what measures are being taken to restore order and give adequate protection to law-abiding citizens in the district?

Dr. SHIELS: The High Commissioner reported on the 4th December that Dr. Berqovitch was shot at and wounded on the previous afternoon while motoring to Rosh Pinah, and that his condition was serious. He further reported that 10 minutes later at the same place an Arab mounted Customs officer was shot at, and his horse wounded, and that the assailant in both cases was unknown. I have received no report as to the provision of a police escort for the doctor, but if the local authorities thought this precaution desirable, I am not disposed to question their view. Every effort is being made to preserve order and to protect law-abiding persons.

INQUIRY AND SITUATION.

Mr. FRANK SMITH: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can say whether the commission of inquiry sent to Palestine is likely to complete its investigations into the causes of the recent happenings in that country in time for its Report to be presented to the House before the Christmas adjournment; whether he is satisfied that the local administration in Palestine is now capable of ensuring security of life and property pending the consideration of the Commission's Report; and whether, in any event, he will make a statement in the House concerning the existing conditions before the adjournment?

Dr. SHIELS: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Commission is expected to conclude its inquiry in Palestine before the end of the month, but I am unable to say when its report will be available. As regards the second part, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Palestine Government is capable of maintaining order in the country, but it is, of course, impossible to guarantee, in Palestine or elsewhere, that isolated cases may not occur of offences against life or property. As regards the third part of the question, I do not think that it would be in the
public interest to make a general statement on the situation at the present juncture.

Mr. SMITH: Has the hon. Gentleman any information concerning the reported trouble and violence at a place called Mestha, near Mount Tabor, and will he kindly make inquiries about it?

Dr. SHIELS: I have no information, but I shall be very glad to make inquiries.

Mr. SMITHERS: Do the terms of reference of this Commission include inquiry into the causes of the disturbances in Palestine?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

CRIME STATISTICS.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the figures for the number of crimes in Palestine in 1920 and 1928; and whether he can account for the increase in the figures?

Dr. SHIELS: It is difficult to make the comparison desired. In 1921, the first year for which figures are available, the number of crimes classified as "heinous" was 650. In 1928, 944 crimes occurred which were classified as "serious." But in the interval—apart from the increase in population—there had been much legislation affecting the number of indictable offences, and in particular the later figure includes no less than 356 cases of "malicious damage to property," a category which first appears in 1926.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does not this malicious damage to property arise out of the Arabs being dispossessed of their ancient lands?

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA.

UGANDA (AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to move the agricultural department of Uganda from Kampala to Entebbe and, if so, why, and what is the estimated cost; whether he has received any representations against the proposal; and whether the proposal has received the sanction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies?

Dr. SHIELS: The Governor of Uganda has informed my Noble Friend that it is proposed to move the headquarters of the agricultural department from Kampala to Entebbe for reasons of general administrative convenience, but no estimate of the cost has yet been reported. It is understood that the question has been debated in the Legislative Council in the Protectorate and the Governor has been asked for a report which has not yet been received. Representations against the transfer have been received from the East African Section of the London Chamber of Commerce and from the Joint East African Board, and have been communicated to the Governor. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the decision of the Governrnent as to the recommendations of the committee on the closer union of British territories in East Africa relating to Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika?

Dr. SHIELS: I would refer the right hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Leyton, East (Mr. Brockway) on 11th December.

Sir H. YOUNG: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the decision of the Government as to the recommendations of the committee on the closer union of British territories in East Africa relating to Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia?

Dr. SHIELS: I can add nothing to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Noble Earl, the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton), on 27th November, except to say that that reply may be taken as applying to Nyasaland as well as to Northern Rhodesia.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is to be taken with regard to the reform of the Constitution of Ceylon, following the vote of the unofficial members of the legislative council?

Dr. SHIELS: As was indicated in my Noble Friend's despatch of the 10th
October, which was laid before Parliament in Command Paper Number 3419, the drafting of the necessary Order in Council to give effect to the proposals will now be put in hand, and the Governor will take the preliminary action directed in paragraph 24 of that despatch.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the hon. Gentleman say more approximately when the new Order in Council will be promulgated and brought into force?

Dr. SHIELS: I am sorry that I cannot give an exact date, but the life of the present council will be prolonged to the end of next year, so that there is plenty of time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHERIF OF MECCA (WAR PARTICIPATION).

Mr. COCKS: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will publish the text of the correspondence which took place between July, 1915, and January, 1916, between Sir Henry McMahon, acting for His Majesty's Government, and the then Sherif Hussein, of Mecca, respecting the territorial claims of the Arab peoples, and the terms upon which they entered the War on the side of the Allies?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. A similar question was put to the Government of the day on the 11th July, 1922. The reply given was that it would not be in the public interest to publish one or all of the documents comprising the long and inconclusive correspondence that took place with the Sherif of Mecca in 1915–16. The present Government see no reason to reconsider this decision.

Mr. COCKS: Does my hon. Friend think it in the public interest for this House to decide questions when the facts are being withheld by the Government? Will not the Colonial Office follow Use example of the Foreign Office and abandon the practice of secret diplomacy?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, is it not the case that this correspondence had nothing to do with the Colonial Office, but was conducted by the Foreign Office; that, as he says, the correspondence was inconclusive; that the Sherif of Mecca came into the War quite apart from anything that
was contained in this correspondence, and that, therefore, it is not in the nature of a contract?

Dr. SHIELS: I may say that I do not accept the aspersions on the Colonial Office made by my hon. Friend. In regard to the second point, some of this correspondence has already been published unofficially, and, after all, there must be some discretion given to a Government Department.

Mr. COCKS: Arising out of the hon. Gentleman's answer and the question put by the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), does not that question show the necessity of publishing the text of this correspondence?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

COTTON GOODS (AFRICAN COLONIES).

Sir GERALD HURST: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any and what progress has been made in the direction of securing the automatic registration of British designs for cotton goods in His Majesty's African colonies, dependencies, and mandated territories?

Dr. SHIELS: As regards the automatic protection, in the African dependencies, of designs registered in the United Kingdom, there has been no change in the position indicated in the reply given to the hon. Member s question of the 11th November.

Sir G. HURST: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to pursue this question in regard to designs of cotton goods?

Dr. SHIELS: It has been very thoroughly gone into, and it is the view of the Government that the present arrangement is quite fair. It is in agreement with the views of the colonies concerned. As far as I can state at present, we have no intention of proposing any alteration.

Sir G. HURST: Does the hon. Gentleman know that at the present time there is no arrangement at all.

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir, I do not know anything of the kind. The arrangement is—and I think the hon. Member got the information the last time he asked the question—that quite a number of colonies
give automatic protection, and in others there is registration by local deposit and a certain charge is made. I understand that part of the criticism is about this charge.

JAMAICA RAILWAYS (ORDER).

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the Council of Jamaica has just ordered 40 railway cars in the United States for delivery in 1930, British firms tendered for the order; and whether they could deliver equally promptly and, if not, for what reason?

Dr. SHIELS: I understand that tenders were received from British firms. They were, however, unable to guarantee equally prompt delivery, owing principally to the fact that whereas cars of the type required can be delivered from stock in America, they require special manufacture in Great Britain.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.

Mr. MANDER: 46.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Empire Marketing Board will refrain from giving publicity to the goods of those Dominions which restrict the import of British manufactures?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): The principles on which the Empire Marketing Board works have been publicly specified on many occasions, and would not be consistent with a policy of discrimination such as that which, if I understand rightly, the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. MANDER: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it a reasonable proposition that we should be spending the money of this country endeavouring to persuade ourselves to buy the goods of a Dominion which does everything possible to prevent our goods going there?

Mr. HURD: 47.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will suggest to the Empire Marketing Board that, following upon their advertisement of British beef on the Board's hoardings and elsewhere, a similar advertisement should be made of the nutritive value of liquid milk?

Mr. LUNN: The Empire Marketing Board have already undertaken an extensive advertising campaign on their hoardings and elsewhere in favour of liquid milk, when special attention was drawn to its nutritive value. I cannot say when the Board will again undertake special advertising of milk.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN NIGERIA (DISTURBANCES).

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received from the Governor of Nigeria any information regarding recent disturbances in Southern Nigeria; what were the causes of the trouble; and what steps have been taken to deal with the disturbances?

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement respecting the causes of the native unrest in South-Eastern Nigeria; and what is the present situation there?

Dr. SHIELS: According to the information which my Noble Friend has received, which is, however, still scanty, the cause of the disturbances was an assessment which involved counting women in certain districts. This gave rise to a wholly unfounded rumour that it was intended to impose direct taxation on women, and recent lowering of the prices paid by merchants for native produce was a further contributing factor. On the 11th of December large crowds assembled, but in spite of assurances that there was no intention of taxing women, proceeded to loot and destroy property at various places in the neighbourhood of Aba and Opobo.
Additional police were brought in to deal with the situation, and were reinforced by detachments of the Royal West African Frontier Force. On the 15th of December, the Governor reported that there were sufficient troops and police on the spot to deal with the situation, and that a reserve was standing by if necessary. On the 16th he reported that it had been necessary to introduce additional troops and police, and that rioters had attacked officials at Opobo, where it had been necessary for the police to fire causing 18 casualties which I regret to say are all women. It is not stated how
many were fatal. My Noble Friend has telegraphed for further information which may be expected promptly. I may add that the districts in question are a long way from headquarters and the people are still largely in a primitive condition. It will probably take some time before the situation is quite clear. Telegraphing last night, the Governor reported that the situation round Aba was now satisfactory and that every effort was being made to avoid further bloodshed.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is this part of the territory that came to us after the War, formerly belonging to Germany, and therefore not one of the older parts of the Colony?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. It has always been part of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPARATION CLAIMS (COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total amount to date of the claims made by British nationals belonging to British Colonies and Protectorates on account of loss or damage falling within the reparation clauses of the Treaty of Versailles; what is the machinery for considering the claims and fixing the amounts of the awards; and what steps have been taken overseas by the Colonial Office to direct public attention to the closing date for the receipt of claims?

Dr. SHIELS: The total amount to date of the claims made by British nationals belonging to the Colonies and Protectorates on account of loss or damage falling within the reparation clauses of the Treaty of Versailles is roughly £100,000. Such claims are assessed, on behalf of the Colonial Office, by the Board of Trade in accordance with the principles adopted by the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware an announcement recently appeared in the Press with regard to the final date for the lodgment of these claims, namely, the 31st March, 1931. The Colonial and Protectorate Governments have been notified by despatch of the closing date and have been asked to give it the widest publicity. Steps are also being taken with a view to giving it publicity in other countries.

Mr. KELLY: Have any of these amounts been paid, particularly in Malta?

Dr. SHIELS: I require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. DENMAN: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the revision of the constitution of Cyprus so as to satisfy the legitimate desire for increased self-government?

Dr. SHIELS: The Secretary of State is not satisfied that the time has yet come when it would be to the general advantage of the people of Cyprus to make a constitutional change of such a nature.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it correct that adjectives like "legitimate" should appear in this connection in a question?

Mr. SPEAKER: Qualifying adjectives are always to be deprecated in questions, but they creep in sometimes.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH FILMS (DOMINIONS).

Mr. DAY: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statistics that will show the number of British talking-films that have been banned by any of the Dominion Governments; and can he give the House particulars?

Mr. LUNN: I have not been able to trace any statistics which would provide the information asked for.

Mr. DAY: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the banning of "Blackmail," a noted British film; and will he suggest to the Dominions and Colonial Governments, that where British films are banned some reason ought to be given so that they may be reconstructed and resubmitted?

Mr. LUNN: I have said that I cannot find any statistics whatever relating to films which have been banned, and, unless my hon. Friend can give me particulars and statistics, I cannot inquire into the matter. If he does so, however, I will make inquiries.

Mr. DAY: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the correspondence between the film producers and Lord Passfield on this subject, and, if not, will he look into it?

Mr. LUNN: I will look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (TREATY).

Sir K. WOOD: 51.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs when the Irish Free State last made a communication to the Government concerning the Irish Treaty or its position thereunder or its relations with this country; what was the nature of such communication; and what reply was made thereto?

Mr. LUNN: There has been official correspondence with His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State on several occasions with regard to particular articles of the Articles of Agreement of the 6th December, 1921. The most recent correspondence of this nature which has been brought to my notice is that concerning the interpretation of Article X regarding the compensation of transferred civil servants. This correspondence led up to the agreement which, it will be remembered, was discussed in this House in July during the Debates on the Irish Free State (Confirmation of Agreement) Act, 1929.

Sir K. WOOD: Is there anything in this correspondence which raises the question of the position of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?

Mr. LUNN: The correspondence took place during the period of the late Government, and I am not at the moment in a position to answer as to the nature of the correspondence. I have answered the question as to what the correspondence was.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED (AIR MINISTRY CHARGES).

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: 52.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total amount received by his Department on account of charges to Imperial Airways, Limited, for housing of aircraft and office staffs, landing fees on Government landing grounds and terminal airports, wireless and meteoro-
logical services, and the cost to his Department for the supply of these services, and the basis on which such charges are made; and if the Air Ministry are willing to supply similar services on the same terms to any unsubsidised air line which may contemplate starting in competition with Imperial Airways?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): As the answer is long, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

At Croydon the Air Ministry receive £7,461 per annum from Imperial Airways, Limited, in respect of the housing of aircraft, the hire of office and other accommodation and the use of the aerodrome. The charges at Lympne aerodrome and at Penshurst landing ground are levied at the ordinary tariff rate for each housing or landing and vary in accordance with user; for 1928 they amounted to £282 10s. in all. The charges in respect of accommodation represent the economic rental based on the capital cost of the buildings with interest on capital, maintenance and amortization. The charges in respect of the use of the aerodromes, which include wireless and meteorological facilities, are the ordinary tariff rates available to all users but at Croydon these are commuted for a fixed annual payment; it would be impossible to segregate from the total cost to the Air Ministry the amount which the user of the aerodromes by Imperial Airways represents. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

AIR SERVICES (CAIRO-CAPE ROUTE).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 54.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is in a position to say what progress has been made in developing the Cairo-Cape air route?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The proposals for this service have been agreed in principle with the various Governments concerned and have also been accepted by Imperial Airways, Limited; and various preparatory details for the organising of the service are in hand. The survey party referred to in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull
Central (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on 30th October has forwarded a first report, from which it appears that satisfactory arrangements have been made with regard to ground organisation within the Union of South Africa.

Mr. SMITHERS: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the latest news of the two officers on this route?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I am afraid that I cannot give any news at the moment.

Sir SAMUEL HOARE: When is it expected that the first section of the route will actually begin to be operated?

Mr. MONTAGUE: It is expected that it will begin to be operated in June, 1930, and the latter half about six months after that.

AIRSHIPS R 101 AND R 100.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 55.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what alterations are being made to airship R 101; when she will be ready for further flights; when she will make her projected flight to India; and when the trials of airship R 100 will take place?

Mr. MONTAGUE: As regards the first part of the question, the work in progress on R 101 consists of minor modifications which the trials have shown to be desirable and practicable, such as the enlargement of the gas bag wiring and the removal of equipment and fittings which the trials have shown not to be required. In addition, it is proposed further to increase the efficiency of the airship by the insertion of an additional bay. As regards the second and third parts, the airship will resume flying as so-on as these alterations are completed; I am not, therefore, as yet in a position to give a definite date for her first flight to India. As regards the last part of the question, R 100 was flown successfully from Howden to Cardington on Monday, and her flying trials from the Cardington tower have commenced.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Has my hon. Friend made any arrangements for a further Parliamentary trip?

Major GEORGE DAVIES: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea of what the additional cost of these alterations is likely to be, approximately?

Captain BALFOUR: Are these alterations in any way going to reduce the factor of safety for which the airship has been designed?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Certainly not; quite the contrary.

AEROPLANES (FLYING LIFETIME).

Mr. PALMER: 57.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he can state the average flying lifetime of an aeroplane; and what are the methods employed by his Department to ensure that no aeroplanes are retained in commission to the prejudice of safe flying?

Mr. MONTAGUE: It is not possible to give a definite answer to the first part of the question. The flying lifetime of an aeroplane depends upon the type of machine, the country in which it is used, and the manner of its use and other variable factors. As regards the second part, elaborate instructions in regard to the maintenance, inspection and testing of service aeroplanes are laid down in the King's Regulations and Air Council Instructions. They provide for a daily inspection of all machines in use, for further periodical inspections after a given number of hours' flying, and for complete overhaul or reconditioning after other stated periods. The system in force should make it impossible for any machine to be retained in commission if it has become unsafe for flying.

Captain BALFOUR: Is the hon. Gentleman making every possible effort to ensure that aircraft 12 years old in design will not be used—war-time aircraft?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FARNSWORTH v. MANCHESTER CORPORATION.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the case of Farnworth versus Manchester Corporation and to the opinion of Lord Dunedin expressed therein; and if he will take steps to ensure that a nuisance similar to that in Manchester shall not be caused by the power station proposed to be erected in London?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): My attention has been called to the case referred to. With
regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 5th December to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR TRAFFIC (DAZZLING HEADLIGHTS).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will request the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to furnish him with a further report on the most modern devices and controls tried or adopted in different countries for dealing with the problem of dazzling headlights on road vehicles in time for publication before the House of Commons is asked to deal with the Road Traffic Bill?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: So far as I am aware, the elimination of dazzle has not been the subject of investigation by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The problem involves practical as well as scientific considerations and the technical officers of my Department are in constant touch with all modern developments.
The Road Traffic Bill does not deal with the lighting of road vehicles, which is covered by the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927, and I am considering the advisability of making a regulation under that Act.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the hon. Gentleman quite sure that he has sufficiently full powers under that Act and will not require further legislation to compel the adoption of particular types of glass, if his technical officers advise him that modern discovery shows that they are practicable?

Mr. MORRISON: Yes, I think I may say that I am satisfied that the existing powers under the Act of 1927 would be sufficiently comprehensive.

LOWER THAMES TUNNEL.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is now in the position to make his promised statement on the construction of the Lower Thames Tunnel?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Negotiations are still continuing with the various interests concerned, and I am not at present in a position to make any further statement.

PARKING PLACES (LONDON, W.).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 62.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider extending the time at present allowed on parking places in the West End of London?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I see no reason for extending the time at present allowed on parking places in any part of London, and would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for the Eye Division (Mr. Granville) on 27th November, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is garage accommodation for only about a quarter of the vehicles that use the West End of London and that want to park, and that even when they do go into garages, the price is exorbitant for the poorer man?

Mr. MORRISON: I am not satisfied, on the information before us, that that is the case. In any case, we have to have some cognisance of the danger of our spending large sums of public money on street widenings and then having them, in turn, turned into free garage accommodation.

Mr. DAY: Will my hon. Friend consider having erected at different parking centres signs similar to those in use on the Continent so that motorists will know where they can definitely park?

LIVERPOOL-MANCHESTER ROAD.

Mr. TINKER: 63.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of persons now employed on the Liverpool-Manchester road which is in course of construction; what will be the maximum number; and when it is expected the road will be completed and ready for use?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The number of men employed on the Liverpool-Manchester road during the week ending 12th December was 528. At the beginning of November the number was 823; the reduction has been due to bad
weather. It is anticipated that the maximum number of men to be employed at any one time will be in the neighbourhood of 1,600. The date fixed for completion of the works is 30th November, 1933, and it is hoped that the whole length of the road will be ready for use by that date. As sections are completed they will be opened to traffic.

LONDON TRAFFIC (GOVERNMENT POLICY).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 65.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, before announcing the Government's plans for dealing with London traffic, he secured the agreement of the London County Council to the scheme so far as it affected their property?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The announcement to which the hon. and gallant Member refers was a. general statement of the Government's policy in regard to the co-ordination of London passenger transport, and its terms were not discussed with any of the interests concerned.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Does the hon. Gentleman think it right to make public announcements about taking over the property of these public authorities without even consulting the existing owners?

Mr. MORRISON: I think the course of action which the Government have taken is perfectly right in the circumstances of the case. I have no reason to believe that the London County Council consider that they have been treated with any discourtesy, and discussions will proceed with them as soon as we have reached the necessary stage of detail.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be better, instead of entering upon these long and doubtful negotiations, to reintroduce the London Traffic Bill?

Mr. MORRISON: Not only do I think that would be wrong, but the House of Commons has rejected those Bills.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 72.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has referred to the London Traffic Advisory Committee to consider and advise as to the steps to be taken to deal with the congestion of traffic caused by the development of central sites like Devon-
shire House and Grosvenor House, Westminster, and Hereford Gardens, Marble Arch, so that several hundred families are housed where few were housed before without any corresponding provision of adequate road-traffic space?

Mr. MORRISON: The London Traffic Advisory Committee have considered and advised me on the general problem raised in the hon. and gallant Member's question. Representations have been made in individual cases, but I am advised that the powers of the London County Council are not sufficient to enable them to deal adequately with the traffic problems created by developments on sites such as those referred to by the hon. and gallant Member. I am conferring with the representatives of the London County Council with a view to seeing whether further powers could with advantage be sought.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it not possible to consider the question of bringing in Hyde Park close by for a larger development of Park Lane?

Mr. MORRISON: If it is a question affecting the extent of the Park, that is a matter upon which it will be necessary to consult the First Commissioner of Works.

RURAL ROADS (GRANTS).

Mr. HURD: 66.
asked the Minister of Transport if the new allocations from the Road Fund for the relief of unemployment will in any way lessen the amounts hitherto available as grants for the maintenance and improvement of rural roads?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I do not anticipate that the acceleration of road and bridge works for the relief of unemployment will lessen the amounts hitherto made available for the improvement of rural roads not in Class I or Class II, but as the hon. Member is aware, the grants to the ordinary maintenance of such rural roads will be discontinued at the end of the current financial year when they will be merged in the General Exchequer contribution made to County Councils under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929.

Mr. HURD: Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that the amounts available to the county councils on road account will be in any way lessened?

Mr. MORRISON: I was not responsible for the passage of the Local Government Act of 1929, and I am afraid I should require notice of that question.

Mr. HURD: But are not the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues responsible for the new funds that are being spent upon improvements?

Mr. MORRISON: If that supplementary question refers to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question on the Paper, I think he will find the point sufficiently covered in the first answer that I gave, and I do not anticipate that we shall meet difficulties on that point.

RAILWAY PLATFORMS.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: 67.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of the passenger platform at the London, Midland and Scottish Railway station at Flint, which platform is so low that passengers frequently have difficulty in getting in and out of compartments without assistance; and whether, seeing that the railway company have been for many years delaying the carrying out of the alterations essential to make the platform not merely more convenient but also safer for passengers, he will intervene to have the work carried out without delay?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: My attention has been previously drawn to this matter. I understand that pending the carrying out of certain extensive alterations which are contemplated at and near Flint station, the railway company do not consider it necessary to incur expenditure on the existing platforms.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Will my hon. Friend call the attention of the railway company to the platforms at Tebay and others on that railway?

Mr. MORRISON: I came to the House ready to deal with Flint station, and I am afraid I cannot deal with the stations mentioned by my hon. Friend without notice.

RIVER TYNE (BRIDGES).

Mr. EDE: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport at how many points the River Tyne is crossed by a bridge at points on its tidal reaches; how far from the mouth of the river the nearest bridge is; and
what is the distance between the bridges on the tidal reaches nearest to and furthest from the mouth?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: There are six road bridges from and including Newborn Bridge to the mouth of the river. The nearest bridge to the mouth of the river is the new Tyne bridge at Newcastle, which is about 10¼ miles from the mouth. The distance between the new Tyne bridge and Newborn bridge, which is the farthest from the mouth, is about 6½ miles.

Mr. EDE: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport if he has yet reached a decision on the application of the county boroughs of South Shields and Tynemouth for the appointment of an engineer to consider the problems involved in a crossing of the River Tyne between the two boroughs; and, if not, when he is likely to reach a decision?

Mr. WEST RUSSELL: 74.
asked the Minister of Transport if, seeing that when he met representatives of the county boroughs of Tynemouth and South Shields with regard to a new bridge or tunnel across the Tyne, he agreed to appoint an engineer to investigate the matter, provided the local authorities made the necessary application, he will state whether he has received this application; if so, has he appointed an engineer; and will he state the name?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I regret that I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Russell) on the 11th December.

Mr. EDE: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to say whether he will be able to make an announcement before Christmas?

Mr. MORRISON: It is possible, but I should hesitate to give a definite assurance on the point.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (DURHAM).

Mr. EDE: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the London and North-Eastern Railway Company contemplate any extension of the electrification of their system to any of the lines in the county of Durham; and, if so, the mileage it is proposed to electrify and the towns that will be served by the electrified lines?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am informed by the railway company that no electrification of their lines in the county of Durham is at present contemplated.

FOOTPATHS.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 75.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in making any new roads, he will consider the making of adequate footpaths separated from the main road by either a hedge or a ditch?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: As I have stated in answer to previous questions, it is the practice of my Department to require the provision of adequate footpaths where it is desirable and practicable, before any scheme of improvement or new construction is approved for grants from the Road Fund. I am not satisfied that footpaths should of necessity be separated from the carriageway by a hedge or ditch; but I have issued instructions to my divisional road engineers that in the siting of footpaths regard should be had to the preservation of trees and hedges.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that it would be far prettier and more in keeping with the characteristics of the country if the footpaths were separated from the main road by hedges or trees?

Mr. MORRISON: I think that frequently that might be the ease, but should hesitate to utter a universal dogma.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the requirements in certain country districts of mounted riders?

Mr. MORRISON: That will be considered at the right time.

JERMYN STREET, PICCADILLY (WIDENING).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 76.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will confer with the local authorities as to their plans for widening Jermyn Street, Piccadilly, before the Commissioners of Crown Lands deal with the site of the Geological Museum in that street?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The question of the widening of Jermyn Street is primarily one for the local authorities concerned, and I am not aware that any such proposal is under consideration by them.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the motor traffic renders the street dangerous to life and limb?

Mr. MORRISON: I am not aware that it is particularly so in this street. In any case, the matter is one for the Westminster City Council rather than for the Department, at any rate, in the first instance.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS.

SEATING ACCOMMODATION.

Mr. MALONE: 79.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if be has made any investigations as to whether it would be possible to re-design the seating arrangements in the House of Commons so as to provide accommodation for all Members?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): A Select Committee investigated this problem as long ago as 1868, but no scheme has been developed in recent years. I am advised that a satisfactory scheme of reconstruction would involve large-scale alterations and very considerable expense.

MEMBERS' SECRETARIES (TYPISTS' ROOM).

Mr. MALONE: 80.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the allocation of a special room in the Houses of Parliament where Members' secretaries may bring and manipulate their typewriters?

Mr. LANSBURY: After discussion between my officers and those of this House, arrangements are being made for the room known as the Oratory, adjoining the Secretaries' room, to be allotted for the use of Members' secretaries as a typists' room.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. JAMES'S PARK (DOGS).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 81.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that certain restrictions have recently been imposed on the free use of St. James's Park; whether he will look into this matter and restore the original freedom that has hitherto been enjoyed?

Mr. LANSBURY: I think that the hon. Member must have in mind the Order that dogs must be kept on leash in the park. This Order is necessary in the in-
terest of the flowers, in view of the removal of railings, which I have carried out for the improvement of the appearance of the park, and I do not see how I can agree to cancel it.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In view of the broad-minded views of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the freedom of the park, does he not also consider that every dog should have his day as well?

Mr. LANSBURY: I also think that every flower should have its right to bloom.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICES) ADDITIONAL GRANT BILL.

Commander WILLIAMS: I desire to ask for your personal guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which arose last night, when we were discussing the Highlands and Islands Medical Service Bill. There was some doubt in the minds of certain Members whether this is a Money Bill, and whether it has been certified as such; and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you can give the House guidance on this matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill to which the hon. Member refers is a Money Bill, and I have certified it as such.

EXTENSION OF POLLING HOURS.

Mr. SCURR: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the hours of polling at local government elections.
Our experience in Parliamentary elections is that when the poll has extended from seven to nine o'clock, it has in many instances enabled a larger number of voters to record their votes. As a consequence, we have been able to get a far better expression of the opinion of the country. In municipal elections, we still follow the old rule of a poll from eight in the morning to eight in the evening. There was for a time a possibility in the boards of guardians elections of having the time extended to nine o'clock, but to a large extent that went; the guardians will go out of existence next April, and we shall have only the eight-to-eight poll for the other authorities.
In London, these hours exclude a large number of persons from recording their votes at municipal elections. I feel sure that hon. Members opposite will support this Bill, because they are constantly assuring us how interested they are in local government, and they will agree that it is far better to have a poll of 80 or 90 per cent, of the electors than to have the miserable polls that we often have in municipal elections. A large number of people who live in places like Westcliff and Southend have to get to work in London in the morning, and they find it impossible to record their votes before they leave, and they often cannot get back in the evening in time to do so. Statistics which the London County Council have given show clearly that large numbers of people, who would otherwise be excluded from the poll, are able to vote in the extended hours. This Bill does not compel any municipality to have a 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. poll if there is no need for it. I can quite understand that there are certain areas like the City of Westminster where it is perhaps not necessary, but in those areas which are largely dormitories it is necessary. The Bill proposes to follow the ordinary practice in regard to Parliamentary elections, and to allow candidates to have the right to demand a pall from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. or 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. or 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. I think this Bill will commend itself to the House.

Major COLFOX: I rise to oppose this Bill, because I consider that it is absolutely and entirely unnecessary. It will impose unnecessary expense upon the authorities concerned, and, in addition, impose a totally unnecessary strain on the returning officer and his staff, who in many cases are old men and ought not to be asked to carry on their duties for many hours and then, very likely, be called upon to assist in the counting of the votes after the poll has closed. This may mean that some of these people will have to be at their posts continuously for 15 or more hours on end—18 hours perhaps—and it is quite unfair and unnecessary to ask them to submit to this strain.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Scurr, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Mort, Mr. Thurtle, Mr. Cluse, Mr. Robert Richardson, and Mr. John Palin.

EXTENSION OF POLLING HOURS BILL,

"to extend the hours of polling at local government elections," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 21st January, and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

PREVENTION OF VICTIMISATION.

Sir GERVAIS RENTOUL: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the Minister of Health to give such directions as may be necessary to local authorities for the purpose of ensuring the fulfilment of undertakings given by, and on behalf of, His Majesty's Government during the General Strike, 1926.
I am hopeful that this Bill will commend itself to a majority of the Members on all sides of the House, because it seeks to remedy a grave anomaly which has revealed itself during the past few days. We now discover that it is apparently open to any local authority to set at naught the solemn pledges given by His Majesty's Government on behalf of the nation. We are told that the Government have no power to intervene, and that so little as they are concerned in the matter that it is out of order to put questions in this House to any Member of the Government with regard to these matters, because they are not responsible for them. This Bill seeks to empower the Minister of Health, acting on behalf of the Government, to issue such directions as may be necessary to local authorities in order to ensure the fulfilment of undertakings and pledges given by His Majesty's Government. [Hon. MEMBERS: "What were those undertakings?"] I regret that it should have been necessary to revive unpleasant memories and the bitter experience through which this country passed some three years ago. I regret that very much; but the recent incident in connection with the tramway men at Hull has made it altogether unavoidable and inevitable. We have learned that a large number of tramway men employed by the Hull Corporation have been threatened with dismissal or with reduction to a lower grade in the service after three years of unblemished service on their part, and it has been publicly suggested that they are being dismissed or degraded because the majority of the Tramways
Committee desire to rid themselves of men who had volunteered during the General Strike, and for no other reason. Whether this be so or not I am not able to say at the moment.
We understand that the matter is to be ventilated in the Courts, and no doubt the whole of the circumstances on both sides will then be brought into the light of day, and consequently I desire to say nothing that is likely in any way to prejudice those pending legal proceedings. But the gravity of the matter as it affects this House is that on Thursday last, when the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour was questioned about the matter she, without attempting to deny the accuracy of the statements that were made, said she had no power to intervene in this matter. I think most of us must have heard that admission with surprise and with a certain feeling of shock, because, apart from the legal position, one would have imagined that the moral influence of the Government was sufficient to have carried very great weight, especially with a number of men who are their avowed supporters, especially as that influence was used on previous occasions by the right hon. Lady's predecessor. If it be true that the Government have no power to intervene, then I submit to the House that it is not only desirable but essential that they should have such power. That is why I hope for a large measure of support from hon. Members here, irrespective of party divisions, because there is no doubt whatever that a very clear and definite pledge was given in regard to this matter. I say that in spite of the ingenious suggestion made yesterday by the hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle) that no such pledge ever was given and that it was merely an appeal made by the Prime Minister of the day. I am afraid that will not do. [Interruption.] Public memories may be short, but they are not quite as short as that. [Interruption.]

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Sir G. RENTOUL: Not only was such a pledge given, but it was given on the authority of the whole House, and if such pledges are given a very grave state of affairs arises if they are not observed. [Interruption.] What was the pledge? It was a pledge many times repeated throughout that period. It
appeared in its clearest and most concise form in an official statement issued on 6th May, 1926, in which are contained these words:
When the present General Strike is ended His Majesty's Government will take effectual measures to prevent victimisation of any man who remains at work or may return to work.

Mr. SEXTON: Which they did not do.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Sir G. RENTOUL: And then there appear these words:
No man who does his duty loyally to the country in the present crisis will be left unprotected by the State from subsequent reprisals.

Mr. W. THORNE: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: There will he an opportunity for reply.

Sir G. RENTOUL: On 13th May, after the General Strike—[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. T. Smith) not to keep on interrupting.

4.0 p.m.

Sir G. RENTOUL: On 13th May, after the General Strike had collapsed, the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin), then Prime Minister, used these words in this House:
I have given no pledges at it all during this conflict except one, and that is, that those who help the Government should not Suffer for having done so. … If ever I went back on that pledge, who would ever trust me again? Not only that, but who would ever trust a Government again?
The present Prime Minister said, in the course of the same discussion, that the House should make a declaration to the whole of the nation to that effect. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), now Lord Privy Seal, said:
I ask every Member of this House who has any influence to join in substantiating the plea of the Prime Minister, with which I heartily associate myself.
As far as the Liberal party is concerned, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), at that time used these words:
I should also like to say I am in entire agreement with the Prime Minister that it is essential that the pledges he gave
during the strike should be redeemed. Anyone confronted with such an emergency as the Government had to encounter had to take action for the purpose of carrying on the life of the community. They could only do so by encouraging men to undertake tasks which had been deserted by others. In order to do so, pledges had to be given both to those who remained at their tasks and to those who were prepared to come in, and I cannot see how any Government, or any employers, can fail to carry out pledges of that kind without dishonour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1926; eels. 1045–57, Vol. 195.]
I could multiply quotations of that kind, but it is quite clear from what I have said that this pledge was given by His Majesty's Government on behalf of the nation, and it was given with the express consent and approval of all parties in this House. In these circumstances, I do submit that it is intolerable that a local council should he in a position to set such a solemn undertaking at nought, and especially when we are told that it is part of a long-cherished design. One of the councillors concerned is reported in the Press to have said publicly that his party on the council had been waiting for a long time to get these men out. Another Member of the committee said that if the men were not dismissed, they must definitely go to the bottom. That is to say, for the last three years these men have been working satisfactorily, some of them have obtained promotion—

Mr. THORNE: Over the heads of others.

Sir G. RENTOUL: —and now they are to be either dismissed or to go right to the bottom of the ladder. As I say, there may be an answer to all this, but if the facts are as stated, I do submit that it would be an abuse of power by the tramways committee and the whole corporation. I hope it is not true, but it is certainly a breach of both the letter and the spirit of the pledge that was very solemnly given in this House. It upsets an equitable agreement that has been working very well for a long time past. It revives bitter memories. I do urge upon the House that this is a matter in regard to which the Government ought to be in a position to intervene, and if they have not got the authority and the power to do so, they ought to be accorded it, as they are under the terms of this Bill. For all these reasons, I hope I shall obtain not only the leave of the
House to bring in this Big, but also a very large measure of active sympathy and support.

Mr. MUFF: I rise to oppose this Bill. It is somewhat of an ordeal for a new Member to be called upon, but I should be lacking in my duty if I did not, as representing part of the county borough of Kingston-upon-Hull, try to inform the House as to the real facts of this case. I want to say right out that this is an attempt to put right the victimisation which has been going on since 1st May, 1926, at the behest of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). At the outset, seeing that the hon. Member opposite has mentioned the City of Hull and its Corporation, it would be as well if I might be allowed to quote the actual resolution passed on 26th November, 1929. It states:
That the whole of the volunteers be given notice to terminate their engagement; that they be given the option of applying for re-engagement"—

HON. MEMBERS: Why?

Mr. MUFF: I will try to explain that when I have read the Resolution.
the option of applying for re-engagement in the lowest grades; that the principle of promotion which was in operation prior to May, 1926, shall apply, namely, that seniority of services, coupled with ability, shall be the basis of promotion, and that with respect to those employés who were on the undertaking prior to May, 1926, and Who have since received promotion for other reasons than the one outlined above, the general manager be instructed to review their cases on the basis of the principle Laid down.
It is a sorry history of what has been transpiring, not only in the city of Kingston-upon-Hull, but in other places where systematic victimisation took place. Kingston-upon-Hull was affected for days after the rest of the country had come to terms owing to the fact that the new party of the right hon. Member for Epping, the undergraduate party, filled the city. They came in large numbers at a cost of £15,000 to the rates. [An HON. MEMBERS: "Mostly spent in drink."] No, Sir, they only spent £900 odd in refreshments. When the strike was settled, they called in mind the words of the Leader of the Opposition, the then Prime Minister. It was difficult. There were only two Labour members upon the tramways committee. The Conservative majority expelled them, and refused to
allow them to do their duty to the burgesses of Kingston-upon-Hull. The right hon. Member for Epping, the editor of the "British Gazette," in putting into force the Emergency Powers Act, saw to it that one of these men was arrested and sent to gaol for six months. He came out of a sick bed suffering from a diseases prostration, and, instead of excusing Limy they persecuted him.
Let us come to the crux of what happened. The then chairman of the tramways committee pitchforked into offices of responsible men volunteers contrary to the terms of the advertisement for their engagement which I have here in black and white, and made them into inspectors, supervisors and so forth. To such an extent had the scandal grown that even the party with which hon. Members opposite are associated had a committee of inquiry, and it was found that many men who had been promoted were inefficient. Fourteen were left, and of these one committed suicide, one died, and, with the exception of three or four, they were sacked by Members of the party opposite because they were inefficient. It amounts to this: There are 113 volunteers to-day. They have received notice which takes effect at the end of February, and the hon. Member opposite and his lady friend need not be under any apprehension that they will have to put their hands into their pockets to pay for any Christmas dinners. These men, if they are out of employment, will put themselves out of employment. Boiled down to the actual facts, it concerns two inspectors, three time-keepers, and 18 motor-men who were promoted contrary to the service conditions, and contrary to the regulations of the advertisement which I have here. Those men will be offered reinstatement in the grade at which they should be put, and according to the terms of the corporation service, that is, at the lowest grade, and men who have been victimised since the General Strike are going to be promoted with from 20 to 25 years' service. We want to bury the hatchet, and but for the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who has endeavoured to bring about a class war, the hatchet would have been buried long ago. I am told that, in football parlance, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has pet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Epping on the transfer list. I want to say, in conclusion, that if I thought one of those 113 men was going to be thrown on the streets I should not be standing up in my place this afternoon opposing this Measure. I am convinced that justice is going to be done to those 113 men, and also to the 700 men who are left, as well as to the manager who was victimised at the behest of the party

opposite. I hope the House will not give a First Reading to this Bill.

Question put:
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the Minister of Health to give such directions as may be necessary to local authorities for the purpose of ensuring the fulfilment of undertakings given by, and on behalf of, His Majesty's Government during the General Strike, 1926.

The House divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 202.

Division No. 108.]
AYES.
[4.17 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Albery, Irving James
Foot, Isaac
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Aske, Sir Robert
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Atholl, Duchess of
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Balniel, Lord
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Beaumont, M. W.
Glassey, A. E.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Penny, Sir George


Berry, Sir George
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Granville, E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Birkett, W. Norman
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Blindell, James
Gray, Milner
Pybus, Percy John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ramsbotham, H.


Bracken, B.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Briscoe, Richard George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Remer, John R.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hanbury, C.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Harbord, A.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hartington, Marquess of
Rothschild, J. de


Buchan, John
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Butler, R. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Salmon, Major I.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Savery, S. S.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, s.)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Chapman, Sir S.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Christie, J. A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Skelton, A. N.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Iveagh, Countess of
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Colfox, Major William Philip
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smithers, Waldron


Colman, N. C. D.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colville, Major D. J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cowan, D. M.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cranbourne, Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomson, Sir F.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Train, J.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Warrendor, Sir Victor


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macquisten, F. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Edge, Sir William
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Womersley, W. J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Elmley, Viscount
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


England, Colonel A.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)



Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weeton-s.-M.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Faile, Sir Bertram G.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sir Gervais Rentoul and Major


Fielden. E. B.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Carver.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Herriotts, J.
Raynes, W, R.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Richards, R.


Angell, Norman
Hoiline, A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ayles, Walter
Hopkin, Daniel
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Horrabin, J. F.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Barnes, Alfred John
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Ritson, J.


Batey, Joseph
Isaacs, George
Romerll, H. G.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rowson, Guy


Benson, G.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kennedy, Thomas
Sandham, E.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kinley, J.
Sawyer, G. F.


Bromfield, William
Kirkwood, D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Bromley, J.
Knight, Holford
Scurr, John


Brooke, W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sexton, James


Brothers, M.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brawn, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawrence, Susan
Sherwood, G. H.


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, John James
Shield, George William


Burgess, F. G.
Leach, W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Eiland)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Shillaker, J. F.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shinwell, E.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cameron, A. G.
Lindley, Fred W.
Simmons, C. J.


Cape, Thomas
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sinkinson, George


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Charleton, H. C.
Longbottom, A. W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Chater, Daniel
Longden, F.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Clarke, J. S.
Lowth, Thomas
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, William
Sorensen, R.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McElwee, A.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Compton, Joseph
McEntee, V. L.
Stephen, Campbell


Cove, William G.
McKinlay, A.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Daggar, George
MacLaren, Andrew
Strauss, G. R.


Dallas, George
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sullivan, J.


Dalton, Hugh
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sutton, J. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mansfield, W.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Day, Harry
March, S.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Marcus, M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Dickson, T.
Mathers, George
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)


Dukes, c
Matters, L. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Ede, James Chuter
Maxton, James
Tout, W. J.


Edmunds, J. E.
Messer, Fred
Turner, B.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Milner, J.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Morley, Ralph
Wallhead, Richard C.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watkins, F. C.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Mort, D. L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley)
Moses, J. J. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Gillett, George M.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gosling, Harry
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Welsh, James (paisley)


Gossling, A. G.
Murnin, Hugh
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Gould, F.
Naylor, T. E.
West, F. R.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Westwood, Joseph


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Oldfield, J. R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Groves, Thomas E.
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Paling, Wilfrid
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Palmer, E. T.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Perry, S. P.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hardie, George D.
Phillips. Dr. Marion
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Hayes, John Henry
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Pole, Major D. G.



Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Muff and Mr. Arnott.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

First Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SOVIET RUSSIA.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: I beg to move,
That this House expresses its disapproval of the methods of the present Government in its conduct of the negotiations with the representative of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and condemns its careless drafting of the protocol of agreement.
I put this question down for discussion to-day because of the unsatisfactory nature of the answers which I have received to numerous questions which I addressed to the Foreign Secretary on the negotiations with the Soviet Government, and the attitude taken up by that Government in regard to propaganda methods organised in this country and throughout the Empire. This question has been considered by the representative of the Soviet Government and the Foreign Secretary. Hon. Members are aware that I have been a somewhat persistent questioner on this subject. I think I may also claim that I have not only been persistent, but I have been thoroughly consistent in my attitude on this matter. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) occupied the position which is now occupied by the present Foreign Secretary I did not spare him, because I thought it was my duty to raise this question, but I found the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham more open to reason than the present Foreign Secretary.
Let me, first of all, say that I believe it is a fundamental misconception, and it is wrong, to suppose that in dealing with the Soviet Government we can be guided by any precedent in the conduct of negotiations with any other nation. It will be recalled that the famous lady in the past was no ordinary woman; in fact, she was no lady at all. The Soviet Government is no ordinary Government; it is, in fact, no Government at all. The real governing body in Russia to-day is the Third International, otherwise known as the Comintern. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] A Government is that body within a nation in which authority resides, and no authority resides to-day in the Soviet Government as such; as I have said, the chief governing authority to-day in Russia is the Comintern or the Third International. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which?"] Even if we credit the
Soviet Government with the best and most honourable intentions in the world, it does not follow that they are in a position to carry out or fulfil those intentions; but I maintain that the Soviet Government have not honourable intentions. Even while—

Mr. THURTLE: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the terms of this Motion are extremely narrow, and that the only question which it proposes to raise is that of disapproval of the methods adopted in the negotiations with the representative of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. That is a very narrow issue, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman must not go beyond the actual terms of the Motion.

Captain MACDONALD: Of course, Sir, I accept your ruling, but I thought that I was only dealing with relevant matters, and, in dealing with the activities of the Third International, or the I.K.K.I., which is the Executive of the Third International, after the negotiations took place, I thought that I was perfectly in order. I would like—

Mr. SPEAKER: For that purpose the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to put down another Motion altogether. I cannot allow him, on this Motion, to discuss something else.

Captain MACDONALD: It is because of the activities of the Third International that I have put down this Motion to-day—

Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing about the Third International in this Motion.

Captain MACDONALD: I am trying to point out to the House that they are one and the same thing, and it has been admitted on more than one occasion in this House, and outside this House, that they were.

Mr. SPEAKER: Even if they were one and the same thing, the Motion is confined to dealing with the methods of the present Government.

Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that the representatives of the present Government have admitted that these two bodies are one and the same thing—that the present Prime Minister of this country has admitted that; and,
in view of that fact, is it not impossible to deal with this question without referring to it?

Mr. SPEAKER: I really do not think that the hon. and gallant Member realises what this Motion means. It states very definitely that it asks the House to express disapproval of the methods adopted in the negotiations by the present Government. It does not say anything else at all, and we must confine ourselves to that point.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is not a fact that the proceedings in regard to the recognition of Russia were all on the basis of the question of propaganda, and that these two bodies are one and the same is admitted by the Prime Minister?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: On a further point of Order. May I point out that the Motion also asks the House to express disapproval of the careless drafting of the Protocol of Agreement; and, surely, my hon. and gallant Friend is entitled to show how the Protocol is carelessly drafted by referring to the Third International and the Comintern?

Mr. SPEAKER: When the hon. and gallant Member comes to that part of his Motion which deals with the drafting of the Protocol, I shall allow him to proceed, but I cannot see what this has to do with the Third International.

Major COLFOX: Might I submit a further point to you, Sir, namely, that if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) is arguing, as perhaps he is, that his reason, or one of his reasons, for objecting to the course followed by the Foreign Secretary, is that the Foreign Secretary was dealing with an undesirable and untrustworthy type of negotiator, and if that is the reason why he is calling in question the character of the negotiators in the other side, would not that be within the Rules of Order?

Mr. SPEAKER: I really cannot see that this has anything to do with the matter. It must also be recollected that this House, as recently as the 5th November, passed a Resolution saying that it was in favour of the resumption
of diplomatic relations with Russia, and we must not stultify ourselves by saying that we do not want them now.

Commander BELLAIRS: On a point of Order. The Government contend that they have a guarantee against the activities of the Third International, and surely it is possible for hon. Members on this side to say that, because of the conduct of the Third International, and also because exactly the same words have failed in the past, the conduct of the negotiations has not been satisfactory?

Mr. SPEAKER: That might be a consideration in connection with the question of resuming diplomatic relations, but the House has already passed a Resolution saying that it was in favour of resuming diplomatic relations, and I really do not see that it has anything to do with the present Motion.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it not clear that, under the guise of discussing the method of negotiation of the present Foreign Secretary, bon. Members opposite are attempting to insult a nation with whom this Government is in friendly relations?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a different point altogether.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Will it not be in order to deal with the Protocol which was signed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and, when the Protocol is dealt with, will it not be in order to try to point out how ambiguous it is, and also that the reason for the ambiguity is that it does not make clear the organic connection between the Soviet Government and the Third International?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have said that, when the hon. and gallant Member came to that part of his Motion which dealt with the careless drafting of the Protocol, I should think that he would be in order in what he was saying.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Could we not adjourn for half an hour, so that hon. Members opposite may make up their minds what they want to do?

Captain MACDONALD: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, although it certainly narrows the scope of this Debate. I will confine myself to the issues which certainly are contained in this Motion,
namely, those of the conduct of negotiations and the drafting of the Protocol. Surely, it is a very serious departure from precedent that negotiations of so serious a character should have been conducted in such a very slipshod manner. When the House adjourned for the Recess, we had a very clear and definite statement from the Prime Minister to the effect that in no circumstances would there be an exchange of Ambassadors until and unless certain undertakings were given by the Soviet Government. One of those undertakings was to be to the effect that they were to recognise their debts to us, and the other to the effect that propaganda should cease. It was also very clearly stated that, before any definite agreement was made, the matter should be discussed in this House. If that procedure had been followed, we should probably have had no grievance at all, but, instead of the matter being brought to this House to be discussed, it was brought to a public house in some other part of the country, and that is one aspect of the matter, at any rate, which I think I am within the scope of my Motion in discussing.
Let us consider this Protocol. I venture to say that never has a State document been drafted in so slipshod and careless a manner in the history of British diplomacy. It clearly and definitely states in Article 9 that, before Ambassadors are exchanged, the agreement must come before Parliament. We were later informed that "Parliament" does not mean both Houses of Parliament, but only this House. Surely that is a very grave and serious departure from what has always been considered to be the constitutional practice in this country. This is the first time, I think, in history—

Mr. SULLIVAN: On a point of Order. May I ask if the hon. Member is in order in insulting the other House?

Captain MACDONALD: That, I am afraid, would be outside the scope of this Motion, but, nevertheless, I maintain that, in this departure from Parliamentary and constitutional practice, the right hon. Gentleman has established a precedent which is very serious and a very grave danger to the Constitution of this country. Article 9 of the Protocol also states clearly and definitely that the matter will be brought before Parliament
this Session. As the Protocol was drafted and dated in October last, it would be necessary, if it were to be carried out in its entirety, that it should be brought before Parliament, not this Session, but early next Session; that would be early in the coming year. There are two very serious errors in the Protocol of Agreement, and I venture to say that, when the local football team meets in that same alehouse to discuss its annual affairs, its proceedings will be conducted in a far more orderly manner than was the business discussed by Mr. Dovgalevski and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We are informed that he did not mean what he said. Imagine what this means to people who can only understand words to mean what they say. Far be it from me to say that those of us who are unable to probe the sphinxlike brain of the right hon. Gentleman opposite understand what he means when he says that Parliament must ratify the Protocol this Session or early next Session. Therefore, I contend that, on this and many other grounds, I could very strongly criticise the attitude of the Government in recognising the Soviet at the present time, the manner in which they have conducted the negotiations, and the careless way in which they have drafted the Protocol of Agreement. I ask the House to agree with me in my view and to support this Motion.

Captain EDEN: I beg to second the Motion.
I believe all sections of the House should be grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for the use he has made of the fortunes of the ballot. We on this aide are certainly grateful to shim for the opportunity which it gives us of reviewing the methods adopted by the Foreign Secretary in the course of these negotiations and, I trust, of effectually criticising them. Hon. Members opposite will have a valuable opportunity of trying to unravel the tangled mesh into which' the right hon. Gentleman's method of negotiation has involved himself and his Government, whereas hon. Members below the Gangway do not seem conspicuous for their interest in the Debate at the moment. No doubt, when they come to speak they will give us another example of the tolerant broadmindedness which is so useful a cloak for the differences in the party.
There is in the Motion no reference whatever to the fact that the Government have seen fit to renew diplomatic relations. I would not wish to criticise them for that for, after all, they made so many pledges at the Election that we can hardly blame them for trying to redeem the only one which lies within the immediate sphere of their practical politics. Therefore, we certainly have no complaint, but I would try to review the methods which the right hon. Gentleman pursued from the beginning of these negotiations. In July he was very firm. The strong rays of the summer sun strengthened him. September came and he was less firm in his methods, with the result that the Soviet Government claimed a victory, which surprised the Foreign Secretary very much, although I do not think it can really have surprised anyone else.
The Under-Secretary in our last debate produced a very ingenious explanation. He told us that the representative of the Soviet Government had not perhaps quite understood all that was going on, because he was not very familiar with the language. That explanation is not likely to carry much conviction. I think the real reason for the method followed by the right hon. Gentleman is far simpler than that. With September came the Socialist party conference, and the right hon. Gentleman's concern was to make a good splash from the pier at Brighton. He knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do that, for all his more slender proportions, because he was fresh from his triumph at the Hague, and he knew the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) would make a good splash not only for his names' sake but because he told them he came back from Canada with something up his sleeve, though he did not tell us then that that something was a vacuum. What was the right hon. Gentleman to do in the face of his two triumphant colleagues? He reviewed the sphere of foreign politics and he found everywhere that, so successful had been the endeavours of the late Government, that there was no scope except in the resumption of relations with Russia, and upon that he concentrated. We can guess the methods that followed, the unofficial diplomacy so characteristic of the negotiations of the party opposite with the Soviet Govern-
ment. We can quite easily picture the coming to and fro until at last this agreement was arrived at, and the kettle of an uneasy friendship was put on the hob at Lewes.
So much for the right hon. Gentleman's method of negotiation up to that time, but what has been happening since the date of the last debate in the House? He has not been watching that kettle. It has boiled over but he has paid no attention to it. He would not look at it. He would not even hear it, although it has been making noise enough. The Soviet Government, through its representative organ, has not attempted to conceal its view of this Protocol and of its terms, or its view of the right hon. Gentleman's methods of negotiation. "Isvestia" is not in the same position as a newspaper in this country. It is not an organ of public, or even of national opinion. It is an organ of Government policy, which is not always the same thing even in this country. Therefore, when that paper makes a, definite declaration as to the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman's policy you may be sure that that interpretation represents the views of the Soviet Government. I do not think that will be denied for a moment. In the terms of this Protocol is the right hon. Gentleman's very definite assertion, with which he is familiar, as to his interpretation of its terms. May I quote one sentence from his speech when we last debated this subject. He made it perfectly evident:
After 1924 it has been plainly stated to the Soviet representatives, and stated again twice by myself, that the Communist International will be regarded by His Majesty's Government as an organ of the Soviet Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1929; col. 901, Vol. 231.]
That is a sufficiently clear declaration. In response to that "Isvestia" makes a perfectly plain declaration. It says:
The Soviet did not and cannot promise to curb the activities of the Communist International, which is an independent organisation outside Soviet control.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, like the previous speaker, is going quite outside the scope of the Motion.

Captain EDEN: I am dealing with something that is in the Protocol and with the right hon. Gentleman's method of commenting and negotiating about it.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman forgets that this House so recently as 5th November definitely passed a Resolution approving the resumption of diplomatic relations. It is quite out of order at one moment to pass such a Resolution and the next to say you do not approve of it. It cannot be done in this House.

Captain EDEN: I was not suggesting that we should ask the House to reverse its decision on the last occasion. However, if that is ruled out of order, I will pass to the next point. I maintain that there is under existing conditions and under existing negotiations a flat contradiction in terms. The right hon. Gentleman has seen the Soviet representative himself in the last few days and I think I am entitled to ask whether he sought from him any explanation of the comment of his own official organ upon the methods of negotiation which have been going on between the right hon. Gentleman and himself.

Mr. SULLIVAN: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman entitled to put a question like that under this Motion?

Captain EDEN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us that information, which I feel sure will be both of use and of interest to the House. I could not help, as I watched this method of negotiation, recalling the words of the Prime Minister in April last when he told us that by hook or by crook it was his intention to see recognition finally carried out. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us what at the present moment is the position as to the negotiations with the Dominions and what their view has been, whether he has received it personally and, if not, what is the present state of those negotiations.
I would pass to the domestic side of this question. In the terms of the Protocol is the statement, with which the Foreign Secretary is very familiar, that he will attempt to secure the approval of Parliament for the Protocol. We know, from replies to questions, that by Parliament he meant the House of Commons, a rather curious and somewhat unfortunate lapse, because as the outcome of it we have this extraordinary position. Parliament has, in fact, ex-
pressed itself quite as emphatically against these terms as it has expressed itself in favour of them, and we are now proceeding to the actual ratification after these prolonged negotiations and we are in this position, that one party to the negotiations has already expressed its determination not to adhere to its terms, while the other party has already expressed an equally indeterminate point of view as to whether it intends to adhere to the terms or not.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this House is the operative part of Parliament, whereas the other House is merely the decorative part?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member really must not make that kind of remark.

Captain EDEN: Those of us on this side of the House who have reviewed the course of these negotiations have often wondered to ourselves what was the fatal fascination which hon. Members opposite found themselves incapable of resisting in all negotiations with the Soviet Government, because it is a fatal fascination. The caresses of the bear have already exterminated the life of one Socialist Government and, unless I am very much mistaken, unless the right hon. Gentleman is more careful in the future than he has been in the past, they may exterminate the life of another. I cannot believe the right hon. Gentleman is under any illusion that the feelings of that Government's representatives are so extraordinarily friendly to himself.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now condemning the action of the House itself by condemning the resumption of diplomatic relations.

Captain EDEN: I will turn, then, to the concluding stages of what I have to say. I regret the method of these negotiations, because I fear that their whole course, not only here but towards the Dominions, cannot but create the very unfortunate impression that this country is uncertain in its views and that in right hon. Gentleman is in some doubt why he is actually negotiating himself, and I fear, in the future that cannot but have very unfortunate consequences. I still hope the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late hour, will try to obtain a
final explanation of these matters in negotiations where there is still a difference of opinion. If he cannot do that, I hope he will have the courage to say so, for it is far better from the national point of view that we should come to a conclusion which we dislike than that there should continue to be over these negotiations, as most undoubtedly there is to-day, a maze of uncertainty which has most unfortunate results both here and abroad and which is doing the Government no good, and certainly will not facilitate their further progress.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. SANDERS: I rise to oppose this Motion, and I do so in a very happy position. I represent a constituency which is unanimously in favour of the proceedings of this Government with regard to the resumption of relations with Russia. Naturally, my own party in my constituency supports the action of the Government and their methods. My Liberal opponents are also with me in my support. The local Conservative party is so enthusiastic and so passionately fervent in its support of the Government in this matter that sometimes I feel a little shocked at the degeneracy which is coming over my local Conservative friends, or opponents, as the case may be. Finally, my local Communist party, which is the ally and sometimes the household pet of the local Conservative party, naturally also supports the Government in this matter most enthusiastically. I ought, if I may be allowed, to commiserate with the Mover and the Seconder of this Motion that they have been debarred from carrying out its real intention. We on this side of the House knew very well when this Motion was put down that the object was, not as was stated in the Motion, but to give an opportunity to the other side to bait the Government of a country with whom we are in friendly relations.

Mr. SMITHERS: Not yet.

Mr. SANDERS: Less than anybody in this House have I any love for Bolsheviks or Communists, and less than any man—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to be trying to run on the same lines as the previous speakers. He must confine himself to the terms of the Motion.

Mr. SANDERS: I agree, and I apologise for being out of order. The criticism of the Mover and the Seconder limits itself to two points only in connection with these negotiations. The first point is that the Foreign Secretary had the audacity to carry on a part of these negotiations with a duly accredited representative of the Russian Government at a perfectly respectable hotel. I have a fairly long political memory, and I recollect that on one occasion, when certain critical matters were being discussed by Parliament and by the country, the late Lord Rosebery threw out the suggestion that the best way to deal with critical matters was for a couple of representative men to meet at a wayside inn. I have no doubt that the Foreign Secretary, who as everybody knows, by what we have seen of his work during the last two months, must have carefully studied the best means of carrying on negotiations based on the practice and precepts of the past, decided to take the advice of the late Lord Rosebery and to carry on the negotiations in the manner that that lamented nobleman put before the country at that time. I think that in dealing with what I may call an unconventional Government such as the Russian Government, slightly unconventional methods are very likely to lead to the best results, and I am certain that, as far as the country is concerned, no matter whether these arrangements and negotiations were unconventional or not, the vast majority of our people are gratified that we are on the point, if we are not already there, of resuming full and friendly relations with this great country.
The other point is the question of the interpretation of the word "Parliament." In this matter, it is a question of interpretation, and the Prime Minister has stated that, when he made the promise that the matter would be brought before Parliament, he had in his mind this House. It is true—I am quite willing to admit it—that the other House is a part of Parliament, but I would suggest, without any disrespect to the other House, that if this House agrees to the line that was taken and the Protocol that was drawn up, that is all that really matters. That agreement has been made. The methods may be questioned, as no doubt any method would have been questioned, but we have come, by what I consider to be the skilled and the proper action of
the Foreign Secretary, to the end, I hope, of a very difficult situation. I trust, too, that not only will it end the difficult situation which has lasted for three or four years between us And Russia, but that it will put an end to the undignified and the vulgar attacks that are being made on another country and will lead to a better understanding between two big peoples.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Sanders) is mistaken in thinking that we on this side of the House object to the conduct of these negotiations on the ground that the treaty, if it is to be called a treaty, or the agreement was concluded in a public-house. Personally, I think that that was the best thing about it. I think that it is a good honest inn that is rather degraded by this agreement. It has troubled us a good deal because we are directly against the policy, but that is not a question which I want to touch upon in speaking here to-day.
I want to ask one or two direct questions of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, who, I suppose, will reply on this Motion. I want to ask whether, when he undertook these negotiations with Mr. Dovgalevski, he first of all did not put the suggestion that questions regarding propaganda and the payment of debts due to British nationals should be settled before Ambassadors were exchanged? I understand from the White Paper which was issued that these questions were put up, and that this was the cause of the first breakdown of the negotiations which took place on 1st August when the Foreign Office issued a statement to say that negotiations would not be resumed at the present. Then we had an interval until 8th September, when, I think, the right hon. Gentleman directed another letter to the Soviet Government, 'and then we had the negotiations started again on 24th September, and on the 29th, the final agreement. Is it not a fact that in this final agreement the right hon. Gentleman climbed down from the position which he had first taken up, that some agreement regarding propaganda in future and the settlement of the claims of British
nationals for debts should be made before Ambassadors were exchanged? I want to ask that question.
The other question I want to ask relates to what has been going on since we had this partial agreement at the beginning of October. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden) pointed out that an official newspaper in Russia had stated that they, the Soviet Government, would not be responsible for any action by the Third International. We had the statement of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer that the three things were a trinity, three in one and one in three—the Soviet Government, the Comintern, and the Profitern. It has been held on all sides of this House that these three are really one. Everybody knows that the Comintern could not exist for a month unless it obtained assistance from Government funds.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: On a point of Order. I beg to call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that Mr. Speaker ruled out all these discussions.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): I was following the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, as I was not sure whether he was out of order at the moment.

Sir A. KNOX: I was trying to allude to this as part of the negotiations, because I consider that all the actions of the Soviet Government and of this Government here until the ambassadors are finally exchanged are part of the negotiations. I think that this lapse is a thing that definitely ought to be referred to in the prolongation of these negotiations. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give the Rouse to-day an undertaking that this question will really be gone into and that the ambassadors will not be exchanged until the Soviet Government give a definite promise that they will be responsible for the actions of the Comintern now and in the future. If he will give that undertaking, we on this side of the House will go into this agreement with a lighter heart. I do not want to go into any further matters regarding the agreement with the Soviet Government, because I might be out of order.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: I rise to oppose this Motion, and I do so because I have the honour to represent a constituency which very heartily approves of the policy pursued by the Government and by the Foreign Secretary, and which is already beginning to reap substantial benefit on that account. Your predecessor, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, gave a Ruling which necessarily restricts this Debate. I was interested, in listening to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald), to hear that his main reason for moving this Motion was the unsatisfactory answers which had been given to questions which he had recently put to the Foreign Secretary. From what he said subsequently, I arrived at the conclusion that he had two other complaints. First, he complained very strongly that the wording was very slipshod and that the Foreign Secretary was open to criticism because, in using the word "Parliament," he had not made it clear that it included both Houses. I have searched through the Debate which took place in this House on the 5th November, and I have looked through the speeches of the late Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister with a view to discovering whether or not they raised this particular point as to the submission of these proposals to Parliament. I have looked in vain for enlightenment from that quarter. Neither the late Foreign Secretary nor the Prime Minister made any complaint as to the wording of the Protocol in this connection, and it seems to me that the hon. Member who moved the Motion might very well take some lessons in the accuracy of drafting a Motion which meets his own wishes. He should hesitate to rush into a chapter of charges against the Foreign Secretary of such a character that they are a grave reflection upon the efficiency of his own Front Bench.
If there was anything in the complaint as to these letters not being submitted to Parliament we might have expected that the Prime Minister and the late Foreign Secretary, who have had a great experience in these matters, would have taken the opportunity of drawing the attention of the House of Commons to the omission. I very respectfully submit that submission to Parliament as laid down in the Protocol has been fulfilled.
As there has been submission to the House of Commons, there has been submission to Parliament, although another place has taken the constitutional way of expressing their opinion. I cannot escape the conclusion that the expression of opinion that has recently taken place in another place is not unrelated to this Motion. In both cases the desire seems to be to create discord, to perpetuate friction and to embarrass the Government but, fortunately, neither in this country nor abroad are the members of the other Chamber taken at the same value that they place upon themselves.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not make use of that expression with regard to the Members of another place.

Mr. TAYLOR: If I have made any allusion to another place which is out of order in this House, I am sorry, but I should be failing in my duty if I did not attempt to make it clear that in expressing that opinion upon this matter they really represented their own opinion and not the opinion of the elected representatives of the people. I cannot see why this Motion should have been put upon the Order Paper at the present stage. In the policy that they have pursued the Government have made the best of a very difficult situation. What could they have done to deal with this problem in a most efficient and businesslike manner than the policy outlined in the Protocol? They might have restored the position as it existed prior to the breaking off of diplomatic relations, but in that case we should have been left without the possibility of a full and complete settlement of all the outstanding questions between the two nations. If they had taken that course we should have been thrown back upon the operations of the Trade Agreement so far as our commercial relationships were concerned and, on the other hand, we should not have got a settlement on the question of debts and counter claims or on the question of propaganda.
The Trade Agreement of 1921, so far as it was workable, was an agreement to make an agreement, and was regarded as the preliminary to a full Treaty which, even at that time, was considered to be essential to a satisfactory solution of all the difficulties existing between the two countries. It seems to me that that
method of restoring the situation which existed before the breaking off of relationships under the later Government would not have settled anything, but would have left us in a very indeterminate position. On the other hand, the Government might have taken the course of exchanging Ambassadors absolutely unconditionally. No hon. Member on this side of the House would have desired the Government to take unnecessarily precipitate action of that kind, because we desire to see a proper safeguard for British interests in this matter as much as hon. Members opposite. We desire to see our country and the various parts of the Empire safeguarded against propaganda, and we desire to see a settlement of the problem of debts. I suggest that the undertaking as laid dawn in the Protocol and as taken from the Treaty of 1924 provides as real a safeguard against propaganda as anything which it is in the power of the Government to lay down. Hon. Members opposite are elevating this question of propaganda to a degree of importance to which it is not properly entitled. Very often in the past we have had to complain of Russian propaganda. In the reports that were placed before the Foreign Office long before there was a Bolshevik regime in Russia, and when we were in full diplomatic relations, there were constant complaints of Russian interference in other countries, and of antagonism and propaganda against British interests. Just as diplomatic machinery was used in those days—

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: On a point of Order. I understand that Mr. Speaker has ruled out the question of propaganda. Is the hon. Member in order in discussing that subject now? If so, shall I be allowed to reply to him?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not think that the hon. Member was discussing propaganda.

Mr. TAYLOR: I do not think that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) was in the House when Mr. Speaker gave his ruling.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I was not strictly in the House, but I was watching the proceedings from another part.

Mr. TAYLOR: If the hon. Member was not in the House when Mr. Speaker gave his ruling, it is a little difficult for him to give us guidance. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was beyond the Bar!"] In former times we had our difficulties in relation to Russian propaganda in various parts of the world, but it was not suggested by responsible members of the Conservative party in those days that we should break off relations.

Mr. ALLEN: Is a discussion of the pre-War activities of the Russian Government in order?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is in order for the hon. Member to say that there have been difficulties in the past.

Sir A. KNOX: Is not the present Debate concerned with the conduct of negotiations by the present Government?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Motion relates to the methods of the present Government in its conduct of negotiations. Surely, the hon. Member can refer to what has happened under previous Governments, in support of the methods now adopted.

Mr. TAYLOR: I was going on to say, as a reason for voting against this Motion and as a reason for upholding the Government's policy, that on former occasions Great Britain had had cause of complaint and that she had wisely had recourse to the normal machinery of intercourse between nations for the settlement of the difficulties, and that no responsible Member of the Conservative party in those days suggested that we should break off relations on that account. Therefore, I think the Government are to be congratulated upon the success which has attended their efforts up to the present time, and I hope the Foreign Secretary and the Government will not be unduly disturbed by the kind of speeches that have been made in support of this Motion. British Statesmen and Russian Statesmen have a very heavy responsibility at the present time, not only to their own peoples but to the whole world. Those who can drive away through the mists of misunderstanding and can overcome prejudice in connection with this problem and lead the two nations to reconciliation will make a great contribution to the cause of international goodwill and constructive world peace.

Mr. ALLEN: It is not altogether inappropriate that an Irish Member should intervene in a Debate on Russia, because Ireland and Russia have probably caused more tense moments in this dignified Assembly than all other countries and all other questions of this unhappy universe. The trouble and heart-searching which Russia and- Ireland have caused from time to time was aptly expressed by the Secretary of the First Ambassador to the Court of Russia, in the reign of Elizabeth, when he said that:
Wilde Irish are as civil as the Russes in theyre kinde,
Hard choice which is the best of both ech bloudy rude and blinde.
[Hon. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] The first word is an adjective and not an affirmative, although it might apply as an affirmative to the present attitude of the Soviet Government towards His Majesty's Government. I understand that my Amendment to the Motion will not be called and, therefore, I seek guidance before raising a point which I am very anxious to ventilate on this or some other occasion. I should like a ruling with regard to the word "methods." The Motion asks the House to express its disapproval of
the methods of the present Government in its conduct of the negotiations with the representative of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.
My Amendment proposed to add the words
and takes notice that His Majesty's Government, in recognising the frontiers of the Soviet Union, ignores the fact of the occupation of the territory of the Socialist Democratic Republic of Georgia by troops of the Soviet Union.
I have looked up the word "method" in the encyclopaedic dictionary in the House, and I find that the meaning of the word is defined as
The way, mode, or cause by which an object is or may be obtained.
In this case the object is the successful conclusion of a satisfactory agreement with the Government of the Soviet Union, but I submit that: "The way, mode or cause" by which this can be obtained, implies both methods of commission and omission. One of the methods of emission has been the failure to make any reference during the negotiations to the illegal occupation by the troops of the Soviet Union of the territory of the Socialist Democratic Republic of Georgia,
which was recognised by the Soviet Government, the League of Nations and the Allied Governments. I should like to have your Ruling on that point before proceeding. I should like to know whether it comes within the terms of the Motion?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the terms of the Motion "the methods of the Government," mean the action of the Government in connection with the negotiations which have taken place up to now. I do not think we can have a debate on foreign policy relating to Russian policy in other places.

Mr. ALLEN: I suggest that diplomatic negotiations with the Soviet Government would have been considerably more difficult if the Foreign Secretary had adhered to the policy outlined by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1923 when he suggested that recognition of the Soviet of Russia should be conditional on the evacuation of the territory of the Georgian Republic by Soviet troops. I submit that they would have been much more difficult if reference had been made to that question and that therefore it is a "method" of omission and comes within the scope of the Motion.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am sorry I cannot accept that view. If I did, there are many other things which might be brought within the scope of the Motion.

Mr. ALLEN: In that case, I shall reserve my remarks for a more suitable occasion, and I hope to take an early opportunity of bringing before the House the statements of His Majesty's Ministers in regard to the evacuation of Georgia, not only in the questions they put in this House when in Opposition, but also in their capacity as delegates to the Labour and Socialist International.

Mr. MOND: I have been surprised during the Debate to notice the very airy way in which an extraordinary constitutional situation has been brushed aside by hon. Members opposite. It seems to me that the object of the Motion is to give the House an opportunity of discussing, and the Foreign Secretary an opportunity of justifying, the amazing position which has arisen as a result of the drafting of the Protocol. Previous speakers
have made allusions to this House being the effective part of Parliament, but that is beside the point. In dealing with documents of State Parliament surely means Parliament, and there are many constitutional precedents of the greatest and highest authority which can be brought forward showing precisely and exactly what Parliament means, outside of which no one, not even a Secretary of State, has any right or power to go. Not even this House has the sole power to alter the Constitution of this country. In May's Parliamentary Practice, on page 2, Parliament is defined as the Crown
and the three Estates of the Realm, namely, the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons.
There is a further reference in Sir Courtney's Ilbert's work on Parliament, in which, on page 15, he says:
Thus Parliament became an Assembly not of three Estates but of two Houses: the House consisting of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the House representing the Commons.
In other words, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. In Sir William Anson's "Law and Custom of the Constitution," on page 49, there are these words:
Parliament therefore consists of the Barons and the Commons summoned by the Crown.
There is a most interesting ruling on this point, by the Earl of Cromer in another place. On the 23rd May, 1916, in dealing with the India Council, he pointed out that in ordinary colloquial language when we spoke of Parliament we alluded principally to the House of Commons, but that technically, of course, a Peer is quite as much a Member of Parliament, and that if the matter ever came before a Court of law it would unhesitatingly be held that Peers were debarred from being appointed to the India Council by reason of that law. It is quite clear, therefore, that Parliament means Parliament as summoned, and does not mean the House of Commons alone. We never asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to put "Parliament" in this Protocol. We should have been satisfied if we had been able to discuss it in the House of Commons, but it was on his own volition that he drafted it in conjunction with the representative of a foreign Power. It was not a document to pull about or
jockey with just as he chose. It was an agreed document, and I have always been taught that agreed documents are supposed to be word perfect and that if one word is wrong the whole document may fall.
We have already asked certain questions of the Secretary of State on this point, and it is interesting to notice the replies he has given. He has said that Paragraph 9 of the Protocol was designed to comply with the Prime Minister's undertaking of 11th July. That undertaking was quite clear and I personally have no quarrel with it. It was an undertaking that there should be a discussion in this House on the question of the Protocol and that it should not become effective unless this House agreed. But Paragraph 9 as drafted is not an instrument which reflects the Prime Minister's promise. It is an entirely different and separate document, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reply to another question, took upon himself the responsibility of substituting "Parliament" for the "House of Commons." I deny that any Secretary of State has any right whatever to do such a thing. He cannot take the responsibility for altering the terms of a settled arrangement nor can he take upon himself the responsibility of using words which are clearly defined in constitutional precedents in another way to that in which they are commonly used. He has no power to do anything of the sort.
I go further. In another part of the Protocol he has given an undertaking to the Foreign Power and to this House that he will bring the matter up as early as possible in the next Session. All who have studied Parliamentary practice and procedure are well aware what a Session means, and we have the words of the Prime Minister as to when he intends this Session to come to an end. Speaking in this House on the 3rd July, he said:
It is our intention that the Session should last until, say, July of next year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1929; col. 83, Vol. 229.]
It seems to me that the Foreign Secretary has put upon himself a curious obligation. All that he has done up to the present is out of order. If he is to bring himself in order with his own
drafting he has to go through one of the following steps. He can obtain the Prorogation of Parliament and commence a new Session and having done that, and put himself in order with his own Protocol, he can arrange for a discussion in both Houses and abide by the result, or he can come forward and present a new agreement to this House. He has not done, or made any attempt to do, either of these things which would bring his own draft in order. I ask: what does he propose to do? Does he propose to carry out any of the steps I have mentioned? Does he propose to leave the draft standing as a memorial to his indifferent draftsmanship, or does he propose to go to the Russian Government and explain to them his mistake and have his draft put in order?
There must be some explanation for such a grave error on the part of a responsible Secretary of State. I have been trying to understand what the cause of that error may be. It is apparent that misfortune dogs the footsteps of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary and his party whenever they deal with this subject. It will be within the memory of the House that the right hon. Gentleman himself lost his waistcoat in Moscow in 1917, and it appears to me that he has been in grave difficulties again with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and his followers, because it is quite clear that it was only upon the very violent representations they made that he entirely changed his mind, and in a moment of panic concluded these negotiations, under most unusual circumstances, and by doing so embarked on a 'Clause at the very tail which he never properly considered and which he has never taken the trouble to put right. It will be within the memory of the House and the country the difficulties which attended the right hon. Gentleman on his return from Russia in 1917, on his arrival in Downing Street. They say that the marks of his impatient paces can yet be traced on the carpet outside the Cabinet Room. I wonder whether he has been in similar trouble lately? I wonder whether his recent delinquency in the matter of drafting State documents has got him into similar difficulties with his present colleagues.
What are the real facts? [Interruption.] The real facts are extremely
simple. [Interruption.] Either the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs does not know the difference. between this House and Parliament, and the difference between a new Session and the Recess, in which case I would suggest, with the greatest deference, that he should obtain a little elementary instruction on the point or that he was in such a great hurry to bring the glad news to his friends at Brighton that he did not take the trouble to draft properly a State document for which he was responsible. He has drafted the Protocol so carelessly that he dare not give effect to its terms; and he does not propose to do so. In other words he made what may be called a school-boy howler in a State document. The lesson of these lamentable negotiations is simple. This House should support this Motion if for no other reason than because it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not bring to his task those qualities and that equipment which are essential for the carrying out of the very delicate duties which his task imposes upon him.

Mr. SINKINSON: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman giving us a lesson on constitutional law and practice. Let me say that one of the greatest impressions ever made upon me was made at the time when I came to this House. Before I had been in the place 24 hours I was taught that this House was the supreme House, that any other place was a secondary place, and that the elected representatives in this House were the greatest men in the country from the political standpoint. From what I was taught then I would say that this House as Parliament is Parliament. I find that there is a certain amount of prejudice predominant in the moving, seconding and supporting of this Motion. I suppose it will be expected that there will be prejudice in favour of the Soviet Government on the Labour benches. Let me give my reason for opposing the Motion. I can see nothing wrong in the Soviet Government taking upon themselves the form of Government that they think fit. There was a time in the history of this House when this country took upon itself a change of Government and actually had the head of the King chopped off. The Table whereon the supposed bauble stood, now stands in the Library.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going rather far from the subject of the Motion.

Mr. SINKINSON: The only thing that the Russians have done is to change their method of Government, and that is entirely an internal affair. The Russians were friends of ours for many years. Up to the Great War and during the War they were our Allies. They lost in the War something like 2,000,000 lives, against our loss of less than 1,000,000 lives. When they decided upon a change in their internal affairs, certain people in this country took umbrage. The Russians are trying an experiment, and that experiment was based on actual facts in other countries. The position was that a feudal State had grown up, and that that feudal State was to be changed to a capitalistic State. It was then pointed out that capitalism had already been tried, and it was said, "Look at Britain and other countries."

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: On a point of Order. Is this subject in order on the Motion that is before the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I would like to hear what the hon. Member is going to say.

Mr. SINKINSON: The Russians' method of government is perfectly in order, and I hold that we have no right to take offence at it.

Mr. SPEAKER: To pursue that subject would certainly not be in order on this Motion.

Mr. SINKINSON: If the experiment is a failure—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not pursue that line of argument.

Mr. SINKINSON: The Soviet Government that is in existence is now finding expression in negotiations with this country, and in seeking trading, diplomatic and social relations with this country. I really find no reason why every encouragement should not be given to the British Foreign Secretary in conducting those negotiations.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: The very confined limits which have been imposed upon us in this Debate make it necessary for those who wish to take part in the Debate to exercise extreme caution. I
hope that I shall be able to conform to the rules laid down, and if I am success-ful—

Mr. SPEAKER: The limits of debate are ordered by the terms of the Motion.

Major DAVIES: I should not wish you to think, Mr. Speaker, that I was criticising your Ruling. I was only, in a way, giving a warning to myself of the very narrow terms of the Motion, and expressing the hope that I should be more successful than my predecessors in dodging the Scylla and Charybdis laid down by the Mover of the Motion. Those of us who have sat through or taken part in Debates touching, however remotely, the question of Russia, cannot but he impressed by the extraordinary change of atmosphere that we see in the House today. Time was when a 11iotion of this sort could have resulted in the Labour benches bristling with warriors armed to the teeth, ready at any moment, whether in order or out of order, to interject, and the Liberal benches would have been as packed as they are at this moment. The Motion seeks to criticise the way in which the Foreign Secretary has handled the negotiations. It is interesting to see why the atmosphere has changed, because that has a certain bearing on the gravamen of our criticism of his mishandling of these delicate negotiations. It is not so long ago that the feelings of hon. Members were expressed rather by the presentation of jewellery than by a refusal of invitations.
The reason why the Foreign Secretary has been struggling under a. handicap in conducting these negotiations is to be found in a past attitude which gave the present pledge. We have seen one after another of the solemn undertakings of the Government failing in achievement when it came to carrying them out in the letter and the spirit, and that has laid them open to criticism, not only from this side of the House, but from the country as a whole. One hon. Member has expressed the opinion that we have brought this Motion forward purely to embarrass the Foreign Secretary and the Government Front Bench. That would indeed be to quote the unreformed Prayer Book a work of supererogation. It is not for us to embarrass him; he has done that for himself. He has embarrassed his party and he has embarrassed the
country. What are the real causes which lead us to criticise his handling of the situation? He entered into his responsible position under a pledge to resume relations. When he came to the carrying out of that pledge, he was faced with difficulties which everyone who has had, to tackle such delicate negotiations knew were there. The right hon. Gentleman knew they were there, but he was compelled to endeavour to carry on the negotiations on account of a pledge that had been given. He was faced with an unreal situation.

Mr. MACLEAN: And an unreal Opposition.

Major DAVIES: I thought the hon. Member wanted to make an intelligent interjection, and so I gave way to him.

Mr. MACLEAN: I made an intelligent interjection, but you had not the intelligence to understand it.

Major DAVIES: The hon. Member knows that when the word "you" is used in this House, it is understood to refer to Mr. Speaker. Anyone who tries to go into negotiations on an unreal basis is bound to ride for a fall. It is not material to have said whether certain undertakings regarding propaganda or anything else should have been given before or after another event. The point that really is the point of criticism is this: That the Foreign Secretary has endeavoured in these negotiations to take up a certain position which he was unable to hold, and consequently in the course of the negotiations he has had to recede step by step and has allowed himself to be euchred and outmanoeuvred by the other party to the negotiations. That is the reason why, regardless of whether the achievement is desirable or not between the two countries, he has embarrassed himself and his Government and the nation, and has caused it to lose prestige as an able negotiator in delicate foreign relationships.
The right hon. Gentleman knew that the representatives with whom he was carrying on negotiations refused to accept any responsibility for actions of a certain other body. He knew that his own Prime Minister had stated that from our point of view we regarded the two as one. Never has that situation been cleared up. It is not cleared up now, as everyone
knows. I think it was the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor) who took the stand that in past history the question of propaganda against this country had been connected in the public mind with the activities of the Russian Empire and its successors. Consequently it is nothing new. That may possibly be admitted. What is new is that the Foreign Secretary took up originally a position which has been placed before the country categorically by the Prime Minister, that in carrying on these negotiations one thing must have been absolutely certain, and that was that we regarded the activities of these other bodies—I shall be out of order in giving names—as part and parcel of the Government with whom this country was carrying on the negotiations. We took up that attitude; the others refused. We knew that they did not mean what we meant them to mean.
It was absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to try to carry on negotiations under these unreal conditions. In order to carry out the pledge that his party had given, he was compelled to live in a fairyland of make-believe and then to recede step by step from the original position that he took up. It has made the nation as a whole, I shall not say a laughing-stock, but it certainly has reduced our prestige in international relationships. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman is going to achieve nothing. He has either to put into operation the undertakings of himself and the Prime Minister and of representatives of the Government in another place—

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): And approved by this House.

6.0 p. m.

Major DAVIES: —and by this House, I agree, and by everyone concerned, that if certain things are done by the other parties to this agreement, then steps to sever the negotiations are to be taken. He knows and the country knows and this House knows that these activities are going to continue, and indeed those responsible for the Russian Government say that they cannot control those activities and that it is absurd to think that they can control them. The methods followed by the Foreign Secretary were
bound to result in an unreal atmosphere and in the situation in which we find ourselves to-day. Hon. Members opposite while they have lost that touch of first love with regard to their brothers and comrades overseas and overland are, at the same time, looking forward to certain commercial advantages for this country. If those commercial advantages hinge upon international relations, and if those international relations are based upon the unreal policy of the Foreign Secretary, what is going to become of this prospect of increased and more profitable commerce between the two countries?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is now going outside the terms of the Motion.

Major DAVIES: I will finish with that point. After all, I was only putting what is called a rhetorical question to which I did not expect an answer. I have only one more comment to make and that is on the constitutional aspect of the question. We always understood hitherto that we had in this country two-Chamber Government. It is true that there are other countries—Liberia I believe is one—so simple-minded and progressive, as hon. Members opposite possibly would think, that they had single-Chamber Government. A good many Members opposite, I think, include that form of Government among their unrealised ideals. But we have always supposed that to achieve single-Chamber Government in this country would entail a long political fight and a constitutional struggle. We see that in this case it has been done by the administrative action of the Foreign Secretary who, by a stroke of the pen, has reduced us to single-Chamber government. It is a comforting thought, however, in view of the brief Debate which took place immediately after Question Time, that even the administrative action of the Government cannot bind either the Government itself, or the country, or apparently anyone else. In that thought I think we can find some consolation as against the menace of this being an indication of a desire on the part of certain occupants of the benches opposite to realise in the near future their ideal of single-chamber government as opposed to that form of government which
we understand by the word "Parliament" to-day. For these reasons it seems to me that the Foreign Secretary has blundered badly in his handling of these negotiations. I do not think that for a long time he and his party are going to recover from the damage which they have done to their own prestige and to the prestige of the nation as a whole.

Mr. WISE: I think what this Debate has demonstrated has not been the careless drafting of the Protocol, but the careless drafting of the Motion which the party opposite have put on the Paper. If they are unable to draft a Resolution of five lines to express the views which they wish to enforce on the House, it is rather presumptuous on their part to criticise the drafting of this Protocol. I think the Debate has also shown the unreal nature of the criticism from hon. Members opposite. The House has listened to a number of speeches designed to criticise words and phrases in the Protocol, but everybody knows that it is not the phrasing or the wording of the Protocol which annoys the other side, but the fact that the Government has renewed relations with Russia. This Motion was not put down really for the purpose of discussing the methods of negotiation, but in order to arouse what hon. Members opposite suppose to be the existing antipathy of this country towards relations with Russia. The attendance in the House this afternoon shows how much importance the House attaches to their efforts. They have been driven to thin legal arguments as to what constitutes the approval of Parliament. It is a curious fact that this point did not occur to them when the Prime Minister made his statement in July of what he proposed to do, and nobody supposes that the point raised about the joint approval of both Houses to an administrative act of the Government would have been raised at all had it not referred to Russia.
They have raised another point. They have tried to insinuate that the Foreign Secretary, in some obscure way, changed his position between the opening of the negotiations and the conclusion of the Protocol. I watched with enormous interest the glee with which the other side welcomed what was evidently a deliberate misunderstanding on the part of some organs of their Press as to the actual proposals made at the beginning of the
negotiations. What the Foreign Secretary said in his Note of 15th July—the first Note sent by the present Government to the Soviet Government—was that he invited the Soviet Government to send a responsible representative to London to discuss with him directly the most expeditious procedure for reaching as rapidly as possible a friendly and mutually satisfactory settlement of the questions outstanding between the two countries. The other side pretended that the Foreign Secretary was desirous of reaching his settlement before the renewal of diplomatic relations. What they desired that he should do was to fall into the trap of following precisely the procedure which they had tried for several years. They criticised the method adopted by the Foreign Secretary, but what other method was possible?
There was another method—the method which they desired him to follow. He might have done what the previous Foreign Secretary and other Foreign Secretaries had done for several years. He might have carried on a long-range correspondence with the Russian Government, by means of manifestoes and speeches and telegrams and declamations against the misdoings of that Government. He might have continued demonstrating to the world how every proposal made by any Russian representative at any international conference, was merely an occasion for acute and ill-tempered and generally rather rude criticism on the part of the representative of the British Government. He might have continued to try to reach a settlement by arousing and stimulating and by occasionally alternating with those methods a rather pretentious and sententious denunciation of the Russian Government's methods. That plan had been adopted for several years and had completely failed. Nobody on the other side had the smallest hope that it would succeed and it was never likely to succeed. The right hon. Gentleman took the only course which was open in the circumstances. He met face to face the representative of the other Government and, as I understand, had a talk as to what the subjects were which required settlement. He then proceeded to establish in his Protocol the only possible machinery by which these problems could be settled. They were problems of great difficulty and intricacy
requiring probably weeks of negotiations. They could not be settled by the exchange of despatches or telegrams. They would never have been settled by the methods previously operative.
There was, for instance, the question of debts, involving an examination of the claims of thousands of claimants on both sides. There was the question of a commercial treaty involving the re-establishment of relations between two entirely different commercial systems and the setting up of new commercial arrangements in both countries. The settlement of such questions has clearly to be reached by friendly negotiations in a friendly atmosphere and that was the method adopted by the Foreign Secretary. The only other point which the other side raised was with regard to the question of propaganda. I am not going to run the risk of being ruled out of order by following the path which the other side have tried to follow, but I will say this, and I think in doing so I am well within the terms of the Protocol. I think the importance of this question of propaganda has been grossly exaggerated.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now dealing with the terms of the Protocol. That subject does not arise upon this Motion. It has been dealt with by the House already.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Does not the wording of the Motion bring the terms of the Protocol within the discussion? There is a statement about the careless drafting of the Protocol.

Mr. SPEAKER: There may be an allusion to the drafting, but it does not follow that the terms can be discussed.

Mr. MACLEAN: With all due respect, Sir, may I submit that it is only possible to show that the Protocol has been carelessly drafted, by quoting its terms?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have no objection to anybody quoting the terms of the Protocol in order to show whether they have been properly drafted or not. What I am objecting to is a discussion of the terms of the Protocol.

Mr. WISE: I am anxious to keep within the rules of order and I shall not pursue the point except in so far as I may comment on the methods adopted in the negotiations. The Foreign Secretary, as
I understand, strove to create an atmosphere of friendly contact between the two countries. He brought the representatives of the two countries around a table to discuss points of common interest and to endeavour to reach a solution of—if hon. Members like to call them so—the easier and more immediate problems. He created a desire in both countries for the avoidance of difficulties in regard to propaganda and other things. I think that was the right method and the only method likely to reach success. The other side are constantly quoting, both inside and outside the House, phrases from newspaper articles, some of them unofficial, some of them no doubt mischievous, and endeavouring to use those articles to make relations between the two countries more difficult.
No one denies the difficulties. It is inevitable after the years of struggle between the two systems—between the two countries—that there should be difficulties in reversing the process of those years and bringing the two countries together. I think the House would have been better guided this afternoon if we were striving to find methods of solving the difficulties instead of striving to discover methods by which those difficulties might be made more acute. If quotations are to be made let us at any rate have authoritative quotations—quotations which are helpful as well as those which are unhelpful. Three weeks ago in a speech to the Central Executive Committee of the Russian Soviet in Moscow the Russian Foreign Secretary said he thought the liquidation of past questions which, owing to their complicated nature, required considerable time, should not hinder the adoption of methods designed to meet present needs, and he referred to the growth of trade and easier conditions for contact and trade between—

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that would not be in order.

Mr. WISE: I will not pursue that, but he ended by saying—and I am sure you will admit that this is in order—
There is a sincere desire to establish friendly relations with the British people and to remove all—

Mr. ALLEN: On a point of Order. Have not speakers on this side of the House already been ruled out of order
for quoting from "Pravda" and from "Isvestia?"

Mr. WISE: I am not quoting from "Pravda"; I am reading a quotation printed by an anti-Soviet propaganda organ in this country.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion before the House condemns the action of His Majesty's Government. It does not go into the question of what the Russian. Government does at all.

Mr. WISE.: I will conclude by saying that the action of His Majesty's Government in striving to create an atmosphere of good will and a sense on both sides that these problems can be solved is the only likely method by which a solution of these problems can be found, and hon. Members on the other side seem to have completely failed to demonstrate the inadequacy of these methods or to put forward any other methods which are likely to lead to better relations between the two countries.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I should have liked to answer the speech which the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) could not make, but I do not find anything to answer in that part of the speech which he did make. The ground, as you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, covered by this Motion is very narrow. It condemns the course followed by the Government in their negotiations, it condemns the slovenly character of the drafting of the Protocol, but the substance of the Protocol has already been discussed by the House, and whatever may be our opinions upon it, we are not entitled to re-open that question to-day. I hope I shall be able, in the very few remarks which I am going to make, to keep strictly within the limits of the issue opened by the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend behind me.
Let me deal first and briefly with the second part of the Motion—the condemnation of the slovenly drafting of the Protocol. The actual terms of the Motion are, I think, "careless drafting," but I prefer to call it slovenly. In our colloquial language, we, as has already been pointed out, often use the word "Parliament" when we intend to indicate the House of Commons, but in documents of State and, above all, in international agreements it is desirable that
language should be precise and correct and that the words chosen should express the meaning of the negotiators. The right hon. Gentleman has very frankly and handsomely taken upon his own shoulders the whole responsibility for the error which has been committed. His attitude is, in fact, one of confession and avoidance. The fault is his, but, in his view, after all it does not much matter, because what he had in mind when, in negotiating an agreement with a foreign Government, he used the term "Parliament" was a statement by the Prime Minister, and because the Prime Minister had correctly used the term House of Commons. "I venture to say that whether or not that kind of slovenly or careless drafting has any other consequences in this particular case, it is dangerous in international affairs. have known, and I could point to, cases where international agreements have been disputed long after they were signed on just such ground as would be open to the two Governments who have signed this Protocol, namely, that the Protocol provided for the approval of Parliament and that the approval of only one House of Parliament, not of Parliament, was given.
That is as much as I wish to say in respect to the international aspect of the question, but I must say one word on the domestic aspect. Parliament is Parliament and cannot be made anything but Parliament by a Secretary of State, and if the right hon. Gentleman means in future to ignore one of the two Houses least let him be careful in his language not to imply that the sanction of this House is the sanction of Parliament. That would be a constitutional innovation and indeed a constitutional revolution, which, good or bad, could not be executed in that way either with due regard to the serious nature of the questions involved or with common courtesy to the other House of Parliament. That is all that I wish to say in regard to the drafting of the Protocol.
I turn now to the methods employed in the negotiations. The charge which I make against those methods is that, in the first place, they are not consistent with the dignity of this country, and, in the second place, that they condemn this Protocol in advance to futility. They render it certain that it will not have
the results which the Government expect from it or hope from it, and they make it not improbable that, instead of improving our relations, it will be a definite step in their worsening. Let me very briefly, as I hope, make good my two points. The hon. Member for East Leicester says that the Soviet Note printed as No. 3 in the White Paper was either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation, fostered in certain Russian quarters, of the attitude of His Majesty's Government. Supposing that were true, what ought to have been the course of the negotiations?

Mr. WISE: I made no such statement.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me exactly what he did say when he spoke of misunderstanding or misrepresentation fostered by certain newspapers?

Mr. WISE: I was dealing with the first Note, No. 1 in the document, signed by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench on 15th July. What I said was that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary says quite specifically that he invited a representative to London to discuss the proceedings for reaching a settlement in order to see the intention of those first negotiations, but very shortly afterwards the other side got the impression, the quite wrong impression, that the purpose was to reach a complete settlement.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That will not do, if I may say so, as an explanation of the course of the negotiations. His Majesty's Government sent a Note which was not very clear. The Soviet Government replied by a Note which was perfectly clear, and in which they definitely asserted their refusal to negotiate at all on the questions in dispute until diplomatic relations were resumed. It was after that exchange of Notes that a Soviet representative was invited to this country and the first meeting took place. The right hon. Gentleman has himself—

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: On a point of Order. You ruled at the commencement of this Debate, Mr. Speaker, that discussion of the acts of the Government prior to the Vote of the House was to be excluded from the Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That was what I
understood to be your ruling, and that we could only discuss such acts of the Government as had relation to the terms of the Motion on the Paper.

Mr. SPEAKER: My Ruling was that this discussion could not degenerate into a discussion complaining of the resumption of diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia. That I should still rule out of order, because the resumption of diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia was endorsed by a Resolution passed by this House on 5th November. Certainly, it will not be in order to re-open that subject, but, as I understood the right hon. Gentleman, he was just coming to the point of the negotiations which took place between the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary and the representative of Soviet Russia, which is exactly what the Motion does say.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is so, and I hope I shall be successful—and I have no reason to think that any part of the argument which I wish to address to the House will prevent my being successful—in strictly conforming to your ruling and in keeping myself strictly within the terms of the Motion. What I am dealing with is the course of the negotiations, and I say that the method of those negotiations, the conduct of those negotiations, is inconsistent with the dignity of this country and is calculated to render futile or sterile the agreement, whatever it is, which has been reached. It is with the course of the negotiations, therefore, that I am dealing. The right hon. Gentleman issued his invitation, and the Soviet Government replied safeguarding the position which they have always taken up. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that their answer was ambiguous. Why did not he clear up the ambiguity before beginning the conversations He preferred to begin the conversations, and the next stage is that they break off the conversations.
The Soviet Government explained why they were broken off. Was there any misunderstanding, was there any doubt, that the Soviet representative correctly stated the reason for which the negotiations were broken off? No correction issued from the right hon. Gentleman, no Foreign Office communiqué, no com-
munication, as far as we know, of any kind was made to the Soviet Government, to say, "You have misunderstood the contentions which we have put forward; you are breaking off because you think we have imposed conditions which we have never suggested." On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman replied confirming the conditions and explaining how it was his hope that the principles on which a settlement could be worked out should have been defined at that stage. It is quite clear that when they parted in July or the beginning of August the Soviet Government, adhering to their Note of acceptance, and not altering their attitude, were refusing to discuss questions which at that time the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State considered an essential preliminary to the resumption of negotiations.
What followed? Without any suggestion that the Soviet Government had altered, without any change in the situation, the right hon. Gentleman invited a resumption of the negotiations, and this time, while the Soviet Government maintained their attitude, as they had done throughout, the right hon. Gentleman made a  volte face, surrendered to the ultimatum which had been issued, and, sooner than find the negotiations broken off a second time because his conditions were not accepted, yielded to the insistence of the Soviet and abandoned the conditions which he had stated as essential. I say that negotiations in which a British Government subject themselves to that kind of humiliation are not consistent with the dignity of this country, do not promote the authority or the influence of this country, and will not aid the right hon. Gentleman in any further negotiations which he has to conduct, either with the Soviet Government or with other Powers, but, above all, with the Soviet Government, because he has shown to that Government that he was so hampered by pre-Governmental pledges, that he was squeezable and as putty in their hands, and that, when they like to insist, he will sooner or later submit. I hope that I have made my first point; at any rate, I shall have made my first point clear to the right hon. Gentleman even if he does not, on reflection, share my view of the error which he committed.
The second point about the course of the negotiations is that their conduct makes it certain that, instead of healing a quarrel, they will continue a quarrel, and not improbably embitter a quarrel. I have already called attention to the consequences of the right hon. Gentleman entering into negotiations on a reply from the Soviet Government which he himself subsequently described as ambiguous. But the same ambiguity runs through the whole of the negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly assured this House that the Protocol which he has signed, and which the Soviet Government have signed, forbids propaganda or interference in our affairs, either in this country or in any part of His Majesty's Dominions. Every spokesman on the Soviet side from first to last has repudiated the idea that in signing the agreement, he attached the same meaning to it. My second paint, therefore, is that with his eyes open, having already been warned of the danger, by his own experience in this very matter, of accepting ambiguous language without being sure that both sides meant the same thing, he has gone on deliberately cultivating that ambiguity, and has not settled the condition which he declares to be a necessary preliminary to the resumption of diplomatic relations. Not only has he not settled it, but by leaving it open, by accepting these relations while each party puts not merely a different, but a contradictory, construction on the Protocol, he is preparing the way for infinite trouble for himself, and for an exacerbation of all the difficulties and bitterness to which Soviet propaganda within the British Empire has already given rise.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: This has been one of the most surprising Debates which I have heard in my 26 years in this House. Very serious charges have been made against the present Foreign Secretary. I think that the gravamen of the charge, according to the closing part of the Motion before the House, is, my carelessness in the drafting of the Protocol. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) has changed the language to some extent, and has described it, not as careless, but as slovenly. Most Members who have sat through the Debate must have been impressed with the irony of the situation. Nearly every speaker on the other side of
the House has found that he has not been able to proceed very far with his speech. before Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy-Speaker has had to remind him that the Motion before the House was so 'carelessly drafted and so slovenly worded that he was entirely out of order. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked the fact that there was an important Debate on this subject on 5th November. I do not wish to say anything that would be in the slightest degree discourteous, but I am not very far wrong if I say that the speech to which we have just listened, certainly the arguments to which we have just listened, were applied by my right hon. Friend in the Debate which took place on that occasion. I would be wasting the time of the House if I were to make the same speech that I made on that occasion.
The main point which the right hon. Gentleman advanced was that some serious change took place between the negotiations at the end of July or the beginning of August and the resumed negotiations that took place when I issued my statement in September. I very fully explained that in my speech, but evidently not so as to convince the right hon. Gentleman. The change was not with us at all; it was with the representative of the Soviet Government. I told the House on 5th November that we broke off the negotiations because he put in a demand to which I would not listen. What was that demand? It was that we should not even settle the question of procedure before ambassadors were exchanged. I pointed out in my speech on 5th November that even then we did not make an exchange of ambassadors, and that we were complying with the conditions laid down by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he replied to the point made by the Leader of the Opposition at the opening of the Session. He laid it down then that we would not have an exchange of ambassadors until the matter had been reported to this House. In my speech, I said that in the Protocol we had complied with one of the two conditions, and that, in having the Debate, we were complying with the second of the conditions.
We have heard a great deal of the methods of the negotiations. The methods of these negotiations were before the House in the last Debate. The negotiations had practically ended when
that Debate took place, and all the things which we have heard to-day, and all the delinquencies that have been hurled at the Foreign Secretary, were known, and were in the speeches of hon. Members on the other side. What did the House do, not in a Debate such as that of to-day, which has been reduced almost to a burlesque owing to the almost careless drafting of the Motion, but in a serious Debate lasting for the whole of the sitting? The House, by a majority of 125—probably the largest majority that has been secured on any important question during this Session—accepted the result of the negotiations, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) wished me God-speed in the rest of my work. Yet to-day hon. Members have spent the last two or three hours in bringing up all the old excuses—I cannot more properly define them—not because there was some flaw in the Agreement, but because hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are opposed to the policy of the Government in seeking to establish proper relations with Russia.
Then there is the second part of the Motion. The hon. Member for East Toxteth (Mr. Mond), who got very near the offensive in his personal references, tried to raise what I believe has more than once been described as a constitutional issue. In answer to questions, I think that I did say that if the words "House of Commons" should have been used instead of the word "Parliament," I was prepared to express my regret for what might be called a formal slip in the manner of expressing it. I am not convinced, however, in spite of all that the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of correct language in a document between this country and a foreign-country, that the word "Parliament" was not the correct word to use in this connection. I am prepared to admit, for the sake of argument, that it might have been a slip, and that it might have been better if I had put in the words "House of Commons." But I can well imagine—and I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to challenge me very much on the point—that if I had put in the words "House of Commons" I would have been blamed for raising a constitutional issue.

Mr. MOND: Hear, hear!

Mr. HENDERSON: Wait and see! The hon. Member has had the opportunity of expressing an opinion, and I want to have an opportunity now. I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman, with all his personal references.

Mr. MOND: On a point of Order. Am 1 not entitled to say "Hear, hear," without being accused of interrupting the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. HENDERSON: I again repeat that I am not fully convinced that the word "Parliament" was not the correct word to be used in this connection. I have been asked on more than one occasion if I had obtained the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and in view of all the talk about the constitutional position—and there have been several demands to-day to know the constitutional position—I have taken the trouble to obtain that opinion. I think the gallant major who represents Yeovil (Major G. Davies) gave us a little ditty on the constitutional position. I think he said he believed that we had two-chamber government. Yes, we have, for certain purposes. In order to put the position very plainly I am going to quote an opinion that has been drafted. It is rather long, but I think, in view of the criticisms, that I am entitled, in my defence, to give this quotation from the legal opinion.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to cause delay by intervention, but I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to fall into a trap. If he quotes a document he is bound by the Rules of this House to lay the document. If he is prepared to do that there is no more to be said.

Mr. HENDERSON: Oh, certainly I am. It is not a document in that sense. It is an opinion which I have obtained. I will quote the document, and then it can go to the OFFICIAL REPORT in order that it can appear on the records of the House.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understands. He said that he would quote the document. If he means that he will read the whole document, of course that is perfectly in order, but it is not in order to make a quotation from a document unless he is prepared to lay it.

Mr. HENDERSON: I have already said that I consider the opinion that I have obtained of such importance that I propose, even at the risk of wearying the House, to give it in full:
It may be that to use the word 'Parliament' in the Russian protocol was a slip in form, but if the Opposition argue that from the constitutional point of view it was a mistake of substance, they are certainly wrong. It must be noted that the resumption of diplomatic relations with Russia is an executive action taken in virtue of the prerogative of the Crown to carry on relations with foreign countries. In strict constitutional law, His Majesty's Government need not secure specific Parliamentary approval for any such action, and until recent times such approval would never have been sought. It was sought by His Majesty's Government on this occasion because, if their Russian policy had been condemned by the House of Commons, they would not have persisted in it, and the Government might not have remained in office. Although executive action in specific matters does not require specific approval by Parliament, nevertheless His Majesty's Government is responsible for executive policy as a whole to Parliament. That, indeed, is the essence of what is called Parliamentary Government. But what is meant by Parliament' when it is said that His Majesty's Government is responsible to Parliament for its whole executive action? Not what is meant by 'Parliament' when we are speaking of legislation?
This is very important.
In respect of legislation the sovereign body is the King in 'Parliament' assembled, and here 'Parliament' means both Houses. But when we speak of His Majesty's Government as responsible to Parliament 'for executive action,' Parliament 'means not both Houses but the House of Commons, and the House of Commons alone. The essence of Parliamentary Government is that His Majesty's Government can be turned out of office by the House of Commons, and by them alone. It has for many years been the established constitutional practice that only the House of Commons can control the executive action which the Government may take. The Government are, indeed, obliged by constitutional practice to answer questions in the House of Lords, but a defeat in that House in no way affects their constitutional right to take any executive action which may seem to them right. It follows from the above argument that from the constitutional point of view there is no substance whatever in the point made by the Opposition with regard to the use of the word Parliament' in the Russian protocol. On the contrary, there is a good case, from the constitutional point of view, for holding that the word 'Parliament' was the right word to use in an agreement with a foreign Power in which the purpose was to make plain to that foreign-Power that a certain executive action could only be taken if the
approval of the relevant Parliamentary authority had been obtained.
That is not my opinion.

Mr. SKELTON: Whose is it?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have already hinted that it is the Law Officers of the Crown—the Attorney-General's. I have already hinted that if there had beers a slip I was prepared to apologise for it, but I tried to strengthen my position by obtaining an opinion, an opinion from one who, I think, is an authority on a constitutional issue such as has been raised, not by me but by the other side of the House.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the Solicitor-General associated with the Attorney-General? We want to be precise.

Mr. HENDERSON: I say that this opinion is endorsed by the Attorney-General.

HON. MEMBERS: "Endorsed!"

Commander BELLAIRS: You said it was the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown.

Mr. HENDERSON: The Law Officer of the Crown. Can I put it that way?

Mr. MOND: Has he given any opinion on the question of the word "Session" which was raised at the same time?

Mr. HENDERSON: No. I never submitted that, because I thought anybody who has any sense at all knew what was meant. The reference to the Session could only mean one thing to the two parties who were negotiating, because if you look you will see that I told him "As soon as Parliament was opened." What else could I mean by as soon as Parliament resumes in October? I also told him that we would have the debate as speedily as ever it was possible when Parliament resumed. There could be no shadow of a doubt as to what was meant. This argument which has been put up can, in my judgment, only have force if there is any misunderstanding on the part of those with whom I was negotiating. That is the important point. There could be no misunderstanding in this House. The Prime Minister had made that unmistakably plain before any negotiations began. He distinctly said to the House, in answer to the Leader of
the Opposition, "We will follow the procedure adopted by our predecessors when they broke off negotiations." The surprising thing is that we are having so much made of the rights of another place. There was not so much made of the rights of another place when relations were broken off. They were never consulted. The matter was never put to them. The deed had been done, practically, before they knew anything about it. So hon. Members opposite are great constitutionalists when the other people are using the wrong word, but are not such great constitutionalists when we are severing relations with an important country like Russia.
One cannot but be left with the conviction that all this—shall I say—second edition of the Debate of 5th November, despite the fact that we then had a majority of 125 for getting on with the work, is due to the opposition which hon. Members opposite are perfectly entitled to exercise towards the policy of the Government with regard to Russian relations.
One or two questions have been submitted to me during the discussion. The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) asked me: "Was any agreement made that debts should be dealt with and settled before relations were re-established?" The answer to that question is quite plain. No such agreement was made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Now I am asked, Why not? I reported to the House why not on 5th November, and the House endorsed our policy. What we did undertake was to get a very definite commitment from them, which it had been difficult to secure in the past, that all forms of debt would be negotiated immediately there was a resumption of diplomatic relations, and that is the position at this moment.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me for interrupting him I My question was this: Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman in initiating these negotiations asked in the first instance that some agreement might be come to before the exchange of Ambassadors regarding debts and propaganda?

Mr. HENDERSON: No, it is the contrary that is true. I asked nothing of
the kind. I laid it down perfectly plainly that what we had to do was to get them committed to four or five important questions that must be the subject of negotiations immediately relations were resumed, but not before. Otherwise I would have been asking for that which is practically an impossibility. How could you negotiate those questions before you enter into relations? How can you negotiate before you get a mission here with which to negotiate and how can you get a mission here until you have resumed negotiations? Therefore, the answer is in the negative. I have also been asked a very pertinent question as to the position with regard to propaganda and the Dominions. It is a very, very difficult question to handle, indeed. We know that the Dominions are many thousands of miles away, and that it is not an easy matter to carry on negotiations within a restricted time. We have done what we could. We have now secured, at the request of the Dominions, that on the presentation of credentials, which I hope takes place towards the end of the present week, as I said in answer to a question to-day, that there will be the exchange of a Note between the two Governments covering-propaganda as between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Government, and also, at the request of the Dominions, there will be a Supplementary Note, in which the name of each Dominion will be specially mentioned, giving exactly the same undertaking as we have secured as regards propaganda with the United Kingdom.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman for that purpose include India as a Dominion, and does "Great Britain" include those parts of the British Empire which are not Dominions?

Mr. HENDERSON: The phrase that is used, "The whole of the British Empire," is made very specific; but we are plus that by a definite supplementary agreement in which the Dominions will all be mentioned. India, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect, is not mentioned as a Dominion; it is included as part of the British Empire.

Commander BELLAIRS: What about the Comintern?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not think that there is any need for gale to answer
that question. I have never given any undertaking in regard to the Comintern. When we have resumed relations, we shall watch these questions. We are as much opposed to this propaganda as anybody on the opposite side of the House. We realise to the full its subversive nature, and, when we get into relations with them, we shall do everything that we can to prevent it, and, in the event of it continuing, we shall use our diplomatic powers to have it discontinued. I think it was the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, in the Debate of the 5th November, who expressed the hope that we would not pack our kit at the very first provocation. I am not quoting him, but I think that is the idea, and it is the sane line we shall endeavour to follow. I hope I have answered the points that were not dealt with in the last Debate. I have endeavoured to confine myself strictly to the two points in the Motion, and I hope the House, if there is going to be a Division, will now proceed to divide.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I intervene in this Debate, because I consider that there is still a question to answer. Aspersions have been cast on the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald) for the drafting of this Motion, but, as a matter of fact, it is extremely ingenious. The question of Russia is a very wide one and may divide opinion. It is one of the biggest problems any statesman has had to face and any Motion on the general question might have led to a very considerable division of opinion. Not two, but 10 or 20 opinions might have been expressed about what ought to be done, but on this Motion there is only one decision to which the House can possibly come. The words of the Motion are:
That this House expresses its disapproval of the methods of the present Government in its conduct of the negotiations with the representative of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and condemns its careless drafting of the protocol of agreement.
The right hon. Gentleman has himself confessed that he was careless and made a slip and any defence he makes is a plea of mitigation and not a real legal defence.

Mr. HENDERSON: Cannot one make a slip without being careless?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Attacks were made on the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight for being careless, but, however great his ability and however honourable his position in this House, he is not the Foreign Secretary, and he has not to draft documents affecting foreign nations. I should think no care could be too great in the case of such a, document, and, whatever the Attorney-General may say, "Parliament" in this House will still mean "Parliament." The Attorney-General has admitted that he has persuaded Judges to interpret words in quite a different sense from that intended by this House. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a conjuror with words, and a conjuror, however honourable he may be, would be wise to conceal his skill in sleight of hand when playing bridge with his friends. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he could not have possibly come to any agreement whatever as regards the question of settlement of debt before Ambassadors were exchanged. Of course, in matters of detail he is perfectly right. Nobody could possibly enter into exact detail on this question in a few months, but he could settle matters of principle. He said in one of his letters that, with good will on both sides, he hoped sufficient progress would be made to enable him, on the re-assembling of Parliament in October, to report what progress had been made and what questions of principle had been defined. What questions have been defined? Not one. I would refer the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain to the very distinct firmness with which the corresponding official in the United States treated this matter. Mr. Secretary Hughes said that it was an easy thing for a foreign State to admit liability for its debts and at any moment the Soviet Government could do so. I submit that this matter should be settled before we enter into relations with them.
There is one more aspect of the question with which I would like to deal. Will the right hon. Gentleman exercise the same skill in the management of State affairs as he would exercise in his own? Suppose he entered into an agreement and the other side obviously interpreted it in a different sense from himself, would he not make inquiries about it? There was very distinct evidence, and I think I am in order in talking
about it, that the other side understood this agreement in a totally different sense from himself. Did he make representations? As far as we know, he made none, because when we asked questions in this House he refused any answer whatever, and we are to presume that no inquiries were made about the sense in which the Soviet Government understood this agreement. I think he has been extraordinarily negligent. It is sometimes useful to apply very simple tests in these matters, and the right hon. Gentleman must surely, in his own private way, have made some inquiries. One wonders whether, in addition to the Attorney-General, he consulted his learned son in this House, and what he said about the meaning of "Parliament" in these matters. Having regard to the facts that the right hon. Gentleman made no representations whatever to the Soviet Government, that he himself has confessed that he made a slip in the use of the word "Parliament," there can be only one verdict on this Debate. There is really no answer to what has been said about the terms of the Protocol.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, who is such a stickler for clear and precise meaning, why there is such a difference between the pronunciation of his own name and the spelling of it?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Because it is a Scottish name.

Mr. HAYCOCK: I am not sorry that in this Debate we have to confine ourselves to the constitutional issue. I want to say a few words on that issue. Our Constitution is supposed to be a democracy, and we are supposed to take our orders from the great British public.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot discuss that matter on this Motion.

Mr. HAYCOCK: All I am trying to do is to suggest that there has been no sin against the Constitution; at least, in spirit in the words of this Protocol. If one question was more discussed than another at the last election, it was the Russian question, and the British public in the last few months has given a very emphatic verdict. Concerning the word 'Parliament," all I know; is that as the
Foreign Secretary has pointed out, in the past when we had the Arcos raid, that there was no question of the House of Lords having any say about it at all, and, even when it was a question of war with Russia and we were subsidising Denikin, Koltchak and the others, we never went to the House of Lords. For the first time for a long time, Parliament has something to say about diplomatic relations. For the first time, the relations between nations are open and above board, and the democratic representatives of the British people will have the last word. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad that hon. Members subscribe to something that is true. Just imagine the burlesque of leaving diplomatic relationships to the other House, to that Chamber of Horrors! We know perfectly well that if Parliament were to consist as far as this question is concerned, not merely of the House of Commons, but also of the House of Lords, there would not be any peace with Russia, and they would have thrown out this Treaty.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member continues to stray from the subject, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. HAYCOCK: I do not want to get out of order, and I think I cannot do better than to drop the constitutional question, and appeal, if I may, to the exact words, the ipsissima verba, of the right hon. Member for one of the Birmingham seats (Sir A. Chamberlain). I do not know which one it is, because he changes it so often. He told us it was inconsistent with the dignity of this country that we should resume relations with Russia, and our dignity was awfully important. I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman's dignity is awfully important; he is almost the most dignified person who comes into this Chamber. I know that peace with Russia is vastly more important than dignity. I do not know how nations can behave in a dignified way. I do not know any sort of dignity as between a nation with 45,000,000 people and one with 130,000,000 people, who occupy one-sixth of the entire earth. Dignity, in this sense, is a, word that means practically nothing, and the dignified thing to do is to wipe up the mess our predecessors made with the Arcos raid, which was not at all dignified, and introduce dynamite into foreign politics.

Commander BELLAIRS: I wish to make two comments on the statement which has been made by the Foreign Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the opinion of one of the Law Officers of the Crown, the Attorney-General, and subsequently he promised to lay the document from which he quoted on the Table as a State document. I think we ought to know whether the Solicitor-General associates himself with the opinion given by the Attorney-General in that document.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: indicated assent.

Commander BELLAIRS: There is another question which has a distinct bearing on the conduct of these negotiations. I believe it is admitted that the Prime Minister, at the time these negotiations were proceeding, was on his way to America.

Mr. HENDERSON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that that is not a fact.

Commander BELLAIRS: Certainly, the announcement of the result of the negotiations in which we recognised the Soviet Government arid consented to an exchange of Ambassadors was made before the Prime Minister arrived at Washington, and I believe the British Government were perfectly familiar with the opinion of the American Government that the resumption of relations with Russia would do harm.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is going back to the question whether we should resume

diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia, and I have ruled that out of order many times this afternoon.

Commander BELLAIRS: I am dealing with the negotiations, and I am simply drawing attention to the fact that those negotiations resulted in a recognition of Russia and a decision to exchange Ambassadors before the Prime Minister had reached Washington.

Mr. HENDERSON: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is right, after a denial has been given to a statement to continue to impute the motive that I was seeking to do something in the absence of my chief?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have often said that to impute motives is, of course, quite out of order.

Commander BELLAIRS: I am not imputing motives, and if there is any imputation of motives in anything I have said I withdraw it. I say that the least that could have been done to facilitate an agreement with America was to have that question discussed in America, because the course which was pursued was likely to harm our relations with the Americans.

Question put,
That this House expresses its disapproval of the methods of the present Government in its conduct of the negotiations with the representative of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and condemns its careless drafting of the protocol of agreement.

The House divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 254.

Division No. 109.]
AYES.
[7.20 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Albery, Irving James
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hurd, Percy A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Berry, Sir George
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Eden, Captain Anthony
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'i'd., Hexham)
Erskine. Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Lleweilln, Major J. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Fleiden, E. B.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Butler, R. A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Carver, Major W. H.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Gower, Sir Robert
Macquisten, F. A.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Christie, J. A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Colman, N. C. p.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mond, Hon. Henry


Colville, Major D. J.
Haslam, Henry C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr).


Cranbourne, Viscount
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Savery, S. S.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Skelton, A. N.
Train, J.


Penny, Sir George
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hattings)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smithers, Waldron
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Ramsbotham, H.
Somerset, Thomas
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Remer, John R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Withers, Sir John James


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.



Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, Sir F.
Captain Macdonald and Major


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Colfox.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mansfield, W.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
March, S.


Alpass, J. H
Gillett, George M.
Marcus, M.


Ammon, Charles George
Glassey, A. E.
Marley, J.


Angell, Norman
Gosling, Harry
Mathers, George


Arnott, John
Gossling, A. G.
Matters, L. W.


Aske, Sir Robert
Gould, F.
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Melville, Sir James


Ayles, Walter
Gray, Milner
Messer, Fred


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Middleton, G.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Milner, J.


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Groves, Thomas E.
Money, Ralph


Bellamy, Albert
Grundy, Thomas W.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mort, D. L.


Benson, G.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Moses, J. J. H.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harbord, A.
Muff, G.


Birkett, W. Norman
Hardie, George D.
Murnin, Hugh


Blindell, James
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bowen, J. W.
Haycock, A. W.
Naylor, T. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayday, Arthur
Noel Baker, P. J.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hayes, John Henry
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Bromfield, William
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Owen. H. F. (Hereford)


Bromley, J.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Palin, John Henry


Brooke, W.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Brothers, M.
Herriotts, J.
Perry, S. F.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Peters. Dr. Sidney John


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hollins, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Buchanan, G.
Horrabin, J. F.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Burgess, F. G.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Pole, Major D. G.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Potts, John S.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Price, M. P.


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Pybus, Percy John


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Raynes, W. R.


Charleton, H. C.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Chater, Daniel
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Church, Major A. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Thomas
Ritson, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kinley, J.
Romerll, H. G.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kirkwood, D.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Compton, Joseph
Knight, Holford
Rowson, Guy


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Daggar, George
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Dallas, George
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Sanders, W. S.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lawson, John James
Sandham, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sawyer, G. F.


Day, Harry
Leach, W.
Scrymgeour, E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Scurr, John


Devlin, Joseph
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sexton, James


Dickson, T.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Dukes, C.
Lindley, Fred W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ede, James Chuter
Logan, David Gilbert
Sherwood, G. H.


Edge, Sir William
Longden, F.
Shield, George William


Edmunds, J. E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lowth, Thomas
Shillaker, J. F.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lunn, William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Elmley, Viscount
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Simmons, C. J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
McElwee, A.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Foot, Isaac
McKinlay, A.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Freeman, Peter
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Sinkinson, George


Cardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sitch, Charles H.


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)




Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Thorne, w, (West Ham, Plaistow)
Westwood, Joseph


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Thurtle, Ernest
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Tinker, John Joseph
Whiteley. Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Tout, W. J.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Turner, B.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Sorensen, R.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Spero, Dr. G. E.
Walker. J.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Wallace, H. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Stephen, Campbell
Wallhead, Richard C.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Stewart, J. (St. Follox)
Watkins, F. C.
Wise, E. F.


Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Strauss, G. R.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Wright, W. (Ruthergien)


Sullivan, J.
Wellock, Wilfred



Sutton, J. E.
Welsh, James (Paisley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling.


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
West, F. R.



Question put, and agreed to.

POLITICAL SITUATION IN INDIA.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the evidence of the co-operation of Indian representatives in the settlement of the constitutional question and relies upon the Government of India to encourage good will by the sympathetic conduct of its administrative and executive functions, particularly in relation to the expression of political opinion.
I realise that the discussion which I am opening this evening may have very serious consequences, and that every word uttered here, while it may influence English relations to India, is likely still more to influence Indian relations to England. Within a few days of this discussion, very critical decisions will be taken in India, decisions which will largely determine whether the new policy which was recently announced will have successful results. I can assure the Secretary of State for India that I appreciate the effort which he is making, with the whole-hearted alliance of the Viceroy in India, in order to settle the constitutional question with good will between the Indian and the British representatives, and I hope that no word which I utter to-night will make that task more difficult.
The situation in India is serious because, ever since the War, there has been a growing alienation between the representatives of Indian political opinion and this country. Even in 1919, when the Montagu reforms began to operate, there was a strong body of Indian opinion which declined to co-operate in those reforms; but during the last two years the situation has become still more serious, because, in addition to that section of Indian opinion which declined then to co-operate, even the Moderate and Liberal parties in India during the last two years have joined the non-co-operation movement. If the constitutional question in India had had to be settled with that alienation
between Indian and British opinion, the task would have been almost impossible, either for the Viceroy or for the Secretary of State, and the greatest tribute to the policy which has been pursued during the last few months is the fact that, for the first time since 1919, there is evidence of representative Indian opinion seeking to co-operate in the settlement of the constitutional issue. To-day we not only have evidence that the Moderate and the Liberal parties are prepared to co-operate, but we have very good evidence that even a large part of that section of Indian opinion which declined to co-operate in 1919 is now looking towards the possibility of co-operation in the settlement of this issue.
The Motion which I am moving begins by welcoming that fact. I think, however, that the House should recognise that, though the position is more hopeful than it has been for many years, there are still three essential things which must be done if there is going to be wholehearted co-operation upon the Indian side. The first of those essential things is that, when the round-table conference comes to meet, the Indian representation at that conference shall be, as far as it is humanly possible to achieve, really reflective of Indian opinion, and I would urge the Secretary of State for India, in preparing the plans by which India is to be represented at that conference, to do his utmost to secure that politically alert opinion in India shall be represented at the conference in such a way that it will have the confidence of the Indian people.
The second essential is that the necessarily rather vague language which was used in relation to the objective of Dominion status in the declaration of the Viceroy should be interpreted in such a way that the Bill which is discussed by
the round-table conference shall definitely embody the principle of Dominion statue. I do not suggest that it will be possible to introduce a Bill which will make the transition from the present Government of India to Dominion status in a few months, or in a year, but I do suggest very strongly that that Bill should be one in which the advance towards Dominion status should be accepted, that it should be one in which there will be progressive and automatic development towards Dominion statue, and that we shall not again have to come to this House, that we shall not again have to have further Commissions, which will mean that the whole constitutional issue of India has to be threshed out again.
The third essential thing, if these hopes of co-operation are to be realised, is that there should be a definite ending of the political prosecutions which have been carried out in India during the last two years. Upon this matter there has been a suggestion that those prosecutions are limited either to acts of violence or to speeches which are an incitement to violence. I think I shall be able to show that that is not the case. But even when there are actual acts of violence, or definite incitements to violence, I want to urge upon the Secretary of State for India the adoption of two principles. The first is that the decision to prosecute should be taken very carefully, and the second is that, when the decision has been taken, the prosecution should be carried out with scrupulous fairness to the Indian people. Unless those two principles are adopted, the effect of prosecuting even for the expression of violent opinion is to make national heroes in a country where there is grave political and economic discontent. I am perfectly sure that I shall have the support of the Secretary of State in that respect, because his own declared opinions on the matter leave no reason for doubt. I have been interested in reading, for example, an article which he himself contributed to the "Contemporary Review" in January, 1026. He was then commenting upon Justice Swift's summing up in the Communist trial. Justice Swift had used these words:
If you come to the conclusion that the language tends to subvert the Government
and the laws of the Empire, if you think that is what the language moans, then you will not only be within your rights but it will be your duty to find the prisoners guilty.
The Secretary of State for India, in the "Contemporary Review," made this comment:
These are very comprehensive words. What is meant by 'laws of the Empire'? How would such an interpretation affect, for example, the Nationalist party at present in South Africa, who have declared for secession?. … Most people would concur in the view that the weapon of prosecution for sedition should not be brought out except in the most urgent case of public necessity.
The principle which the Secretary of State for India expresses there is the principle which I am urging upon him now. I am not arguing that there should not be prosecutions in cases of violence, or incitement to violence; I am only arguing that a prosecution should be decided upon with very great care, and that, when it has been decided upon, it should be carried out with scrupulous fairness. There is one illustration of these two principles to which I want to draw the attention of the House. They are illustrated in the trial which is now proceeding at Meerut. The charge in that trial is:
Waging or attempting to wage war against the King, conspiring to deprive the King of the sovereignty of British India, or to overawe the Government by criminal force or the show of criminal force.
That trial is sub judice, and, therefore, I only make this comment, that it seems to me that the trial is placing out of all due proportion the effectiveness of the campaign which has been urged, and generally I would put this point to the Secretary of State for India. Experience all over the world shows that, if Communists are left alone, they are so stupid in their propaganda that they defeat themselves. There is the case of China, where their stupidity has meant that they have estranged even the left in the Nationalist movement—

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: What has been the loss of life in China?

Mr. BROCKWAY: Their attitude in India is having the same effect, and I want to put it to the Secretary of State for India that there is a danger, by the very prominence of these trials, that more propaganda will be done on their
behalf than they would be able effectively to do themselves. Generally speaking, I would say that the conditions in India, of political subjection and of economic poverty, and the repression which has existed in India, are likely to make many more Communists than all the propaganda of the Third International. To that I would add that not only does there seem to me to be some doubt as to tile wisdom of the trial, but that the proceedings have actually been unfortunate in certain respects—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss the proceedings in a trial which is now going on. That would be quite out of order.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I want to be very careful about that point, and, therefore, Sir, I will first ask your guidance. All that I was going to raise as a matter of discussion was the transference of the trial to Meerut, the refusal of bail to the prisoners for eight months, and the absence of any trial by jury. If you rule these matters out of order, I will not proceed upon them.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is a very sound principle of Order that, when trials are proceeding, references to them and discussion and criticism of them in this House would be out of order.

Mr. MAXTON: On that point of Order. Have there not been many rulings in this House that, while one could not, when a case was sub judice, discuss in this House the merits of the question, it was always in order to discuss the procedure in the matter? I suggest to you, Sir, that my hon. Friend the Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway) is now only discussing the question of procedure, and not the merits of the case.

Mr. SPEAKER: To discuss the general procedure and method of trials in general would be quite in order, but not of a specific trial.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I will leave it at that, having expressed my view upon those three points. The point that I want to urge is that the trial at Meerut was only symbolical of a much wider campaign in India, and that in India during the last two years there have been, under Sections of the Indian Penal Code, and more particularly under Section 124A of that Code, repeated prosecutions, and that those prosecutions have gone much
beyond any attempt to suppress violence or even incitement to violence. Perhaps I may read to the House the actual terms of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, under which these prosecutions have taken place. It reads as follows:
Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs, or by visible representation or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite feelings of disaffection to the Government established by law in British India, shall be punished with transportation for life or for any term, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, to which time may be added, or with fine.
I am aware that Dr. Whitley Stokes in his book, "Anglo-Indian Codes," gives an explanation of that in which he would modify its effect, but, unfortunately, that explanation has no statutory power.
There has been a series of trials in India, of which I think my right hon. Friend will be aware, beginning with the case of the Bangobasi newspaper in 1891, when Sir Comar Petheram was the judge presiding, what is known as the Tilak case, which went to the Privy Council, and where Justice Strachey's summing up at Bombay was endorsed, and again in the case of the Queen Empress v. Arrba Prasad, which has very much modified the explanation given in that book. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the total effect of those judgments is that anyone in India is guilty under this Section who uses words calculated to create a disposition towards dislike or contempt or hatred of the system of Government, even if the words did not in fact create such a disposition and even if they were true. I will leave to others the elaboration of some of the many cases which will be brought before the House showing that, under that Subsection, many Indian politicians have been arrested and imprisoned, not for acts of violence or of inciting to violence, but for the expression of political opinion, which, in my view, ought to be regarded as absolutely legitimate. In addition to that, there has been a special Act passed during the last two years known as the Public Safety Act. I am wrong in saying it was passed, because it was rejected by the Indian Legislation Assembly, but it was certified by the Viceroy. That particular Act has ceased to operate and I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether it is the intention pf the Indian Government to renew the Public Safety Ordinance.
It seems to me, on this issue of political prosecution, two developments are necessary if the attitude of co-operation which is beginning to show itself is to be encouraged. The first is that there should be a limitation of the prosecutions to violence, or to incitement to violence. During the past year there have been twice as many prosecutions of this character as there were last year. I welcome the fact that, since the Viceroy's Declaration, their number has decreased, though I regret to see there have been a few instances. I know it may be argued that strong language, quite apart from attempts to incite to violence, may endanger safety, but if strong language or incitement to violence endangers safety, that is the strongest possible indictment of the system of administration in which that kind of public opinion exists. The second thing that I suggest is essential is that there should be a review of the cases now in prison. That review, it seems to me, should cover two categories of offenders. It should cover old offenders who have been in prison for a very considerable time, and it should cover those who are in prison only for the expression of political opinion on the lines I have outlined. As far as the first is concerned I would particularly draw attention to the recommendation of the Punjab Jails Committee, an official committee of the Punjab Government, which recommended that there should be a release of the Lahore conspiracy prisoners of 1915, offenders imprisoned during the War who have been kept in prison ever since, and, secondly, that there should be a release of the martial law prisoners of 1919. I urge that on the ground of the very long period of imprisonment which they have undergone. As far as political expression is concerned, I would urge that there should be a review of the cases during the last year or two, so that where there has been imprisonment for the expression of political opinion, apart from violence, those cases should be reviewed. I would put to my right hon. Friend the words which have been given in an interview which appeared in the Press to-day by Pandit Malaviya, one of the most honoured of the Hindu leaders:
The Indian leaders are requesting a political amnesty but do not wish the release of men guilty of political murders and
acts of violence. It is recognised that such as these must remain in prison, but it is urged that prisoners' cases should be reviewed for the purpose of releasing men imprisoned only for expressing opinions.
I would strongly urge that point of view on the Secretary of State.
The position in India is full of hope, but there is still uncertainty. In my view, the decision we take, and the decisions which India takes in the next few months, will be of tremendous importance, not merely in the relations of Britain and India, but in the relations of the white and coloured races all over the world. Everywhere subject peoples have a new sense of national existence. Everywhere they are seeking education. Everywhere they are seeking political and economic liberty. There is no force on earth that can prevent that movement of liberty from ultimately reaching its achievement. The problem that is before us is whether that achievement is to be reached by our recognising and encouraging it or by the maintenance of domination, followed by rebellion. The decision we reach in relation to India in the next few months will be a decision which will have tremendous influence upon the whole of that vast problem in the immediate future. There are to-day new forces at work in India which are of much greater significance than the mere demand for political emancipation. They are forces which are demanding cultural emancipation, spiritual emancipation, and economic emancipation. India has been described as decadent. To-day India is the most renascent nation on the face of the whole world. Anyone who goes to India finds it in a ferment of new ideas, finds social reform movements, educational reform movements, women's movements, movements for the equality of the various castes rising up in a degree which we can little recognise here. That Indian movement for human liberty is absolutely irresistible. The issue before the House is whether, with our responsibilities and with our opportunities, we shall co-operate with that movement of liberty and allow it expression which will not bring it into conflict with this country. I want, in conclusion, to say a word to my own friends in India. They have reason to be suspicious and to doubt, but I know the new spirit that is finding expression in our own Government at home and in the Viceroy. I beg the Indian
people to respond to that spirit and I beg our own Government to be courageous in its expression.

Mr. HORRABIN: I beg to second the Motion.
I realise, as my hon. Friend said he did, the fact that any words used in this House on a subject like this may have repercussions far away, and that it is incumbent on anyone speaking on this subject here to choose his words very carefully, and with a due sense of responsibility. I hope that from that far and away most important point of view I shall not offend. I want to express, I believe in the name of the majority of Members of the House, satisfaction at the evidence of the desire of considerable bodies of Indian opinion to co-operate in the solution of the constitutional problem in India, and to express satisfaction equally at the very clear evidence of a new spirit on the part of the Government of India, that new spirit which was expressed so finely in the Viceroy's declaration, with its frankly expressed desire to break through the webs of mistrust which have lately clogged the relations between India and Great Britain, that same new spirit which the Secretary of State voiced so clearly and unequivocally in the House a short time ago. We on this side, at all events, are not surprised that the evidence of that new spirit should come soon from this Government when we remember the words used by the Prime Minister only last year in presiding over the British Commonwealth Labour Conference in London. He said:
I hope that within a period of months rather than years there will be a new Dominion added to the Commonwealth of our nations, a Dominion of another race, a Dominion that will find self-respect as an equal within this Commonwealth. I refer to India.
8.0 p.m.
In that sense this is not surely a new spirit at all—not even as new as 1917. The Act of 1833, passed while still the East India Company ruled, and the Royal Proclamation of 1858 both quite clearly declared for equality of opportunity for the people of India, and some of the very best servants of the Crown who have worked in India, men like Sir Thomas Munro of Madras, or Lord Bentinck or Lord Lytton distinguished servants of this country in India, have always admittedly and professedly
worked for that ultimate goal of equality of opportunity and fellow-citizenship under the British Crown of the two races. That Birkenhead tone to which the Secretary of State referred was indeed a retrogression to the spirit and the attitude of the men who a century and a half ago lost the American colonies to this country. I do not know whether that eighteenth century attitude could have been more clearly expressed than it was on one occasion by the Noble Lord the late Home Secretary when he used these words:
We do not hold India for the Indians. We hold it as the finest outlet for British goods in general and Lancashire goods in particular. We conquered it by the sword and by the sword we should hold it.
The same Noble Lord characterised as "cant" any other view. That is a fine expression of the 18th century attitude. One might almost suggest that a much earlier century, in fact a pre-Christian century, is characteristic of an utterance of that sort. Words uttered in a spirit such as that have resulted in an entire lack of trust, or, to use the Viceroy's words, in "webs of mistrust in India." It is hardly surprising that such words should have led to that result. It is a fact, and we all know it, that not merely the so-called extremists in India but the great bodies of Liberals, independents and moderates to-day manifest that same distrust in the British Government as their more left-wing fellows. I will quote some words which I came across the other day in a periodical dealing with affairs in the East; words written by one who certainly cannot be classed as an extremist. They are taken from an article written by Sir Phiroze Sethna, a member of the Viceroy's Council of State, a leading hanker and an ex-president of the Indian Merchants' Chamber. Sir Phiroze Sethna, writing in the "Asiatic Review" quite recently, while arguing that the British connection must be maintained, says that Western influences must continue to operate, and insists on the necessity of making substantial constitutional advance, or otherwise such hostility may be created against the British connection as to imperil its continued existence. Governmental machinery, he goes on to say, must be reformed and re-adjusted so as to win
for the British connection the unanimous support of the Indian people. These are not the words of an extremist or of a political agitator; they are the words of an Indian at present prominently associated with the British rule in India. I want to point to the significance of the words he chooses to use "re-adjusted so as to win for the British connection"—not to regain but
to win for the British connection the willing support of the Indian people
I suggest that words such as those from such a man are of enormous significance as indicating the nature, extent, and depth of the distrust felt in India at the present time.
To come to the more specific point raised in the Motion which has been moved by my hon. Friend, that distrust has surely been made abundantly manifest by the widespread sympathy shown in India for the accused in such conspiracy trials as have recently taken place at Lahore and Meerut. Whole classes of people, and whole sections and castes of people do not spontaneously express in all sorts of ways their sympathy with violence, with outrage, with murder unless there is some very deep underlying reason for such an expression of sympathy. The very fact of the widespread character of the sympathy expressed in India in view of these cases is evidence of the nature and extent of that distrust. I want to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India that now surely, more than ever before, is the time for the clear manifestation of such qualities as vision and courage on the part of the Government in relation to India. I want to urge that some quite unmistakable gesture, some definite act which would symbolise the new spirit to which he has pledged himself and to which the Viceroy has pledged himself in regard to India affairs; that there should be some definite act or gesture which should make that abundantly clear to the Indian people. It would be good statemanship at this time and would repay this country and the men responsible for it a hundredfold.
I want to remind hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House that the party to which they belong has always quite clearly and quite definitely stood for an
amnesty for political prisoners in India, and that only two years ago, at the annual conference of this party, a resolution was unanimously adopted asking for the release of all political offenders who were in Indian prisons. I want to make it clear, as the Mover of this Motion has already done, that in making that appeal we are not appealing, any more than our fellows at that party conference were appealing, for any less rigorous treatment of clear cases of violence or of clear and definite incitement to violence. We are asking that there should be very careful consideration, indeed very careful reconsideration, of every case which involves merely freedom of political expression and free expression of political opinion. This is a vital matter at the present time. I can think of nothing for which we ought to pray more in relation to this particular problem than that we should win the good will of the Indian National Congress and their support for this policy of co-operation. Is it conducive to the gaining of that support from the National Congress that a member of the executive committee of that body, numbering only some nine or ten men, is in prison on a charge of this kind? I do not want to allude to whole lists of cases, though it would be perfectly easy to do so, illustrating the kind of cases we are asking should be reconsidered and treated differently in future in order to help to break away from this web of mistrust.
I should like to refer to a case that has been mentioned more than once in this House—the case of Mr. Ramananda Chatterji, the editor of a monthly leading English journal. There appeared a book entitled "India in Bondage," by an American missionary. That book was published in serial form and ran through that journal for a period of two years. It then appeared in book form early this year, and no steps were taken. But on a second edition being issued, the publisher, Mr. Chatterji, was arrested and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, or pay a fine of 1,000 rupees under Regulation 124A. I understand that at the trial the prosecuting counsel, or probably the defending counsel, read from the book certain passages quoted from the writings of the present Prime Minister, and the magistrate informed counsel that if the present Prime Minister had used or written those words in India be would have been liable to prosecution for
sedition. I understand that the writer of the book, the American missionary in question, has offered to withdraw the book as a whole if any critic can point to serious mis-statements of fact or even to exaggerated statements. It is that sort of thing which we feel is helping in no small measure to exacerbate that distrust which is making so difficult a real full-hearted co-operation at the present time. I might mention the fact that a list of books has been published in this country as having been banned by the police in one district in India, including poetic works of a Poet Laureate of this country and a poet who was an eminently respectable Poet Laureate, Robert Southey. I have not seen any explanation as to what particular part of Southey's works came under the police ban, but I am sure the ghost of the Poet Laureate must be anxiously awaiting some explanation.
I take up one page of a newspaper and glance across the headings at the top of it. It is a page of an Indian newspaper published in English: "A religious preacher sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment." Two columns afterwards: "A professor sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment." In the next column: "What is sedition? Editor sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment." I do not want to touch on the details of those cases, but I wish to urge that almost all of them—although there may be facts which do not come out in newspaper reports—are definitely cases in which the question of the legitimate expression of political opinion arises, and in regard to which the question of incitement to violence or murder produced long legal arguments during trial. We ask that in cases of that sort the benefit of the doubt should be given to the prisoner rather than against him. We urge that at all costs there should be avoided the sort of deadlock which comes about by one side regarding as necessarily innocent every person charged and the other side regarding as necessarily guilty every person charged.
I want to touch on the particular point of view in relation to this question which has a special appeal to my hon. Friends on this side of the House. There is in this country, up and down the movement with which Members on this side of the House are associated, much anxiety and
apprehension as to the freedom of trade union organisation and trade union propaganda in India. The workers of this country feel that these fundamental rights of the workers in every country in the world must be very carefully safeguarded and that, in circumstances such as have obtained in India hitherto, those elementary rights of the working classes, nowhere more needed than in India, should be free from the suggestion that they themselves are seditious. I stress the side that arises out of this view of the question, and emphasise what I am sure many hon. Members must feel, as I do, that important as the political issues in India are, they are entirely overshadowed, or will be overshadowed, by the tremendous economic issues.
We are conscious of the appalling condition of the great mass of the people in India. We remember that that mass represents something like one-fifth of the total population of the world. We know something, from first-hand knowledge of our fellows who have been out there and have seen it, of the utter degradation of the industrial conditions in some of the important centres of India. We realise the danger of those low standards to our European standards. We realise, as human beings, the danger of a vast population so lacking in stamina, so lacking in the possibility of resistance to disease, that they may at any time become a sort of distributing plague centre for the rest of the world. That is the situation in India that is of more importance than any other to those of us who are associated with the working class movement, and I urge on the Secretary of State that, in order to meet that terribly urgent problem, nothing should be left undone to ensure the maximum of good will on the part of those involved in the solution. We welcome the pledges which the Viceroy and the Secretary of State have given, and we urge the Secretary of State and the Government to make it still clearer to the peoples of India that a new spirit has arisen and a new era of real co-operation has dawned.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I find myself in somewhat of a difficulty with regard to the Motion, but I regard it as applying to the case which I have in mind. Hon. Members opposite will agree with me that in the great problem
of India, which the Secretary of State and the Simon Commission have to face, there are many different angles from which it can be approached. All these angles have to be dealt with, and they constitute the most important problem that the House and this country have had to face for many a year. I hope that no words that I say will raise any awkward question for the Government, the Secretary of State or the Simon Commission. The other day I read the comments of an Indian paper respecting the Debate which took place in this House, and they said that the wisest words spoken in that Debate were spoken by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) when he said:
It is useless to pretend that the incidents leading to this Debate have not for the time being added to our own difficulties, through no fault of our own."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1929; col. 1337, Vol. 231.]
The Motion says:
That this House welcomes the evidence of the co-operation of Indian representatives in the settlement of the Constitutional question.
The Indian representatives are of many kinds, many races and many religions, and I think the Viceroy's Proclamation followed the right lines, when he said that the Government would invite
representatives of different parties and interests in British India and representatives of the Indian States to meet them, separately or together as circumstances may demand, for the purpose of conference and discussion in regard both to the British-Indian and all-Indian problems.
I hope that in this scheme of cooperation the Indian representation includes the representatives of the Indian States—the Princes of India. I do not think that it is realised the great political power that the Princes of India have. I do not think that it is realised that the Treaties that we have with the one-third of India which is governed by the Princes, which Treaties were made by Queen Victoria and confirmed by King Edward and the present King, present a problem which is one of the most difficult if we want the question of the real representation of India dealt with in a proper manner. The problems of the Indian States require careful and sympathetic treatment. In the first place, they want definitely to know what real co-
operation will amount to with the Government of India, in connection with any further proposals towards altering the Constitution, and I submit that their susceptibilities in this direction must be satisfied before we can get any real cooperation in India. They want to be sure that the Government of India will not usurp other powers than those which have been agreed to in their Treaty rights.
Secondly, they are at the present time unhappy about some of their fiscal relations. While the Government of India can put on a protective tariff and alter the fiscal relations, the Indian States, who have to pay more for their ploughs and machinery, get nothing back out of the taxes which the Government of India have levied. They fear that their Treaty rights may be handed over to British India. That is a big problem which must be carefully dealt with. The other day, I received a letter from a friend of mine in India. He said that he wished people who are in a hurry about India would think before they act:
Most of them know so pitifully little of the problems out here and of the conditions that we live and move and have our being in. They do not grasp that the vocal politically-minded class represent one-fourth of one per cent. of the whole of India.
The politically-minded class, some of them are the Princes, are a very small minority, but they are a very vocal minority and cannot be ignored. It often happens that the politically-minded who speak out lead the others. If you do not know the people of India, if you have not lived amongst these 300,000,000 people for several years, you fail to realise their tremendous ignorance on political matters. At least 90 per cent. of them cannot read or write, and when they are led, as they were in the Mutiny by some scare about greased cartridges, by something which affects their religion, you cannot pay too much attention to the small number of politically-minded people in India.
Small beginnings have great endings; and the politicians of India are quite entitled to put their needs before the Government of India and before the people of this country. While I hope we shall do all we can gradually and slowly to press forward in fulfilment of the promise we have given, we must go slowly for many years before we can
reach the goal of self-government for India. The very people who are now crying out for self-government for India would be the first to cry out for a return of the British troops and the British régime in India if it was withdrawn. I believe the co-operation of all Indian representatives is necessary, particularly in relation to the expression of political opinion, and if we go steadily along the line we are trying to go and get the support and co-operation of all classes of opinion, not least the co-operation of the Indian Princes and Native States, we shall stand a good chance of solving the biggest problem that this country has to face.

Mr. BROTHERS: The hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) has made, I think, a really good case for the Motion of the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway). I have been in India, and the people of India are a very lovable race. They may be excitable, but so are all non-educated people, taken in the mass. They are not to blame for that. If they are not able to state their case before a Commission, or if they have not the vote, it is not their fault; it is our fault. We should try to cultivate a better spirit between the two nations. Mere government by fear will not do. We have to realise that they are a nation just as we are a nation, and if we approach the problem in that way we shall do some good. I do not think we ought to consider the question of right as regards India merely from the point of view of trade, but rather on the basis of justice. I am specially interested in the cotton trade, and I know that the unrest in India has a very detrimental effect on the cotton trade of Lancashire, where many of our people are now unemployed. I had the privilege and the good fortune to be in the legislative assembly at Delhi on 2nd February, 1927, when they were debating the question of political prisoners. I listened to the debate for the whole of the day, and heard the arguments for, and the defence of Sir Alexander Muddiman, the Home Member, as he was called. I am speaking from memory, but I remember pretty well all the incidents, and I believe that the case for keeping political prisoners in prison was not made out. The Motion was:
This Assembly recommends the Governor-General in Council that he be pleased imme-
diately to release from prison or bring to trial all the detenus under detention under the Bengal Criminal Ordinance (Amendment) Act, 1925.
On a division the Ayes were 63 and the Noes 50. I quite realise that at times it may be difficult to obtain witnesses because of fear, but that is no reason why these prisoners should not have a fair trial. I have been making inquiries to-day, and I believe the Bengal Ordnance is not now operative, and I will, therefore, not go into that matter. I hope the Secretary of State for India will give this Motion due consideration in the interests of this country and in the interests of the people of India.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: On reading the Motion put down by the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway) I was rather surprised to see that a change had been made from political prosecutions in India to the very much more moderate Motion dealing with the political situation in India, and I confess that I think the Secretary of State for India must have been behind the Mover of the Motion when he made it in these particular terms. They are so moderate and so different from what we were originally led to expect under the title "Political prosecutions in India." The first part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman certainly alluded to certain political prosecutions which are taking place at the present time. He referred especially to the Meerut case, and I see in to-day's paper that a Mr. Kelkar, who is a member of the Central Legislature, is to head an appeal to Pundit Motilal Nehru and Mr. Gandhi asking these two leaders to secure an amnesty for certain persons and generally for all the Meerut trial prisoners.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Hear, hear!

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: The hon. Member says, "Hear, hear," but does he realise the accusation against these men? Does he realise that they are in a very different position from those who were amnestied under the Gandhi-Reading Conversations, that they are accused to-day of conspiring to deprive the King-Emperor of the sovereignty of British India, that they plan to hold the means of communication throughout the country, and that they are acting under instructions from Moscow, and are working for a general strike?

Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. For the guidance of the House in subsequent debate would you state, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is in order to discuss the Meerut trials, in view of the fact that they are still in progress?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see where the subject comes in under this Motion. The hon. and gallant Member has referred to the Mover of the Motion, but I did not hear the speech of the Mover of the Motion.

Mr. THURTLE: The subject was then ruled out by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If it was ruled out by Mr. Speaker I must follow that ruling.

Colonel H OWARD-BURY: It was ruled out after the hon. Member had spoken about it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Chair cannot rule out anything until it knows what is likely to be said.

Mr. BECKETT: Further on that point of Order. The hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway) asked at the beginning of his speech, whether he would be in order in dealing with the Meerut trials, and Mr. Speaker advised him that it would not be in order, and the hon. Member left that subject at once.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: The hon. Member for East Leyton was dealing with the procedure of the trial, which is quite a different matter.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member was in the House at the time he knows that Mr. Speaker ruled the subject out, and I must ask him to follow that ruling.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Then I shall not allude further to that case, but to other eases which hon. Members opposite would have amnestied, though they are in a totally different class from what could be considered political prosecutions. We have had evidence time after time that there are subversive organisations working in India, and that they are financed by foreign money. I could read extracts, one after the other, from the official Russian organ, the "Pravda."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see how that comes within the Motion. The
Motion asks for "Co-operation of Indian representatives in the settlement of the constitutional question."

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I want to deal with the last part of the Motion, in which occur the words "particularly in relation to the expression of political, opinion." Hon. Members have alluded in their speeches to these prosecutions and have claimed that those concerned are representatives of political opinion. With all due respect to your ruling, I want to point out that these are cases of revolutionary activity, and that they have nothing whatever to do with political opinions. Hon. Members opposite would have an amnesty for these prisoners, but I want to prove that these prisoners are in a totally different category from ordinary political prisoners or those who express a rather more violent opinion as to what should be done. These agitations are definite attempts to overturn the Government of the country by violence, with the aid of foreign money. With due respect I suggest that when proclamations are issued to the peasants of India, illiterate people as they are, with a great respect for the written word—

Mr. BROTHERS: They cannot read it.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: That is true, but there is one man in every village who has to make out the taxes for the village, and he can read and write. To him is handed one of these documents and he reads some such statement as this:
Peasants of India. Confiscate the land, hurry to the firing line to destroy the Imperialist colonial system India must be liberated!
That sort of thing is read out and the peasants believe everything. Even in this country one often finds that because a statement has been seen in a newspaper it is looked upon as a fact. You have these inflammatory documents circulated:
The soil of India is rising in flames in the attack on British Imperialism.
What good is that sort of thing going to do in India? These peasants are easily roused by people who go around with these inflammatory documents. How many lives have been lost in India as a result? During the Bombay strikes there were the Communist agitators. Are they to be amnestied? We have to realise
that the politically-minded people of India are but a quarter of 1 per cent. of the vast population of India. We are apt to pay far too much attention to that very small but very noisy minority. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Brothers) knows India, and no doubt he has travelled widely in India. He spoke of India as a nation. India is not a nation; it is 40, 50 or 60 different nations, all speaking different languages, with four or five different religions. It is impossible to look upon the country as a single nation.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is to visit India. No doubt he wishes to come back with a certain amount of information, but what information is he likely to get in five or six weeks? He will travel around and meet various members of the different political parties, who will express different views to him. But is he going to travel through the country? Is he going to see the vast masses of the people who are not vocal? Will he learn their views? He would learn far more if he travelled with some Commissioner or Deputy-Commissioner on a tour from village to village, and saw how justice was administered, how the villagers looked to the Commissioner as the representative of law and order—often one white man amongst a million. The natives bring even their religious questions to him for decision, so great is the confidence that they have in him. Have those millions any idea of what "dominion status" or democracy means? Not the slightest. They have had no political education whatever. If you talked with them their conversation would be of their crops, good or bad, the rainfall, or the price of bread, and of nothing beyond that. When you bring an agitator amongst them he puts new ideas into their heads and stirs them up, and instead of a peaceful community you get a community—

Miss WILKINSON: Does not the hon. and gallant Member go to Chelmsford and stir the people there, or try to?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: The hon. Lady went there, and I read the report of her speech with much interest. She said that she and her party were going to tire us out, but I think that we should tire her out, because we are not accustomed to an eight hours day, as hon.
Members opposite are. Whether one goes to the aborigines with their bows and arrows, or to the cultivators in the United Provinces, one never hears a word of politics spoken. They are a happy and contented people. Why bring discontent all of a sudden to them by introducing politics? The Maharajah of Benares said the other day:
The ever-indulgent British Government, eager to reward India for its war service, made a fateful announcement in 1917, anticipating the actual state of things by at least half a century, and trying to build a twentieth century constitution with materials of the Middle Ages.
That, I think, is true. It is very much what is happening in this vast country with all its possibilities. I have travelled with the pilgrims to the sources of the Ganges; I have met pilgrims who have walked for three or four or even five years to go to the sources and to bathe in those waters as they come out of the glaciers, many thousands of feet above the sea level, and they have poured blessings on the British Raj which enabled them to walk in peace through the length and breadth of the land. That is what the British Government have brought to India. We gave a definite promise in 1917 and we amplified it in 1919, and in the East when we make a promise we carry out that promise, be it right or wrong, be it wise or foolish. It is fatal in the East to break your pledge or to whittle it down. The people there trust the man who keeps his word, and we have always kept our word and we intend to keep our word. The pronouncement of the Viceroy the other day was but a restatement of what has been said before in the past 10 or 12 years.
All those who appreciated the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919 are however disappointed with what has been done. They have been disappointed by the opposition of the Assembly to further measures introduced by the Government of India to ensure the maintenance of order and the elementary rights of law-abiding citizens. Again we find that the trouble created by these Red Communistic agents has played havoc with a great Indian industry, and the spectacle is witnessed to-day of the leader of the Swarajist party threatening to inaugurate another widespread and subversive movement unless his demands are granted. In India we can never afford to give way to violence.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Nor in Ireland.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I quite agree. It is a fatal mistake, but, unfortunately, there has been a, tendency on many occasions for Governments to do so as being the easiest way out of a difficulty at the moment. It always creates further difficulties however in the course of time. We come to the present situation. We have an independent Commission and what it is expected to do is to present an unbiased report. It is not to formulate legislation. The Commission consists of members who have not been associated with India, who had no preconceived ideas about India, but went out there with open minds to hear everything which was to be said by all parties. Now, more than at any other time, when this Commission is due to report, we want a conciliatory feeling in India which will welcome that report. We want Indian appreciation of the kind of reformed government which is possible and practicable. Unless we can get the co-operation of Indian leaders and parties, of the native States, and of the European associations, these reforms, whatever they may be, will be made unworkable. What we need at the present time is the most conciliatory policy possible, and I think in the Viceroy we have to-day one who is doing much by his actions to conciliate all parties in India. The "Times" paid this tribute to him the other day:
It is difficult to describe the respect in which Lord Irwin is held. Though I have waded through oceans of newspaper mud I have never seen a single unkind or doubting word said about the Viceroy. Against his sincerity, even the most violent extremists seem afraid to say a word.
I think we are lucky in having such a man at the head of affairs in India at the present time. This Motion seems to correspond with certain conditions which were formulated at the Delhi meeting of the Congress leaders for acceptance at the round-table conference. It welcomes the co-operation of Indian representatives and relies on the Government of India to encourage good will by the sympathetic conduct of its administrative and executive functions. The first of the demands of the Congress leaders was a demand for a policy of general conciliation. That is being carried out to-day by the Government of India. But they make a second demand, and that is for a general
amnesty, and I think that would be an extremely dangerous policy at the present time. The amnesty of prisoners accused of revolutionary activities ought not to be tolerated in India. We must be firm somewhere. We must uphold law and order, and as long as we are in India we are responsible, not only for the few, but for the teeming millions who are affected at all times by disturbances—and as a rule those who Are killed and wounded in disturbances are not those who cause the disturbances.
At the same time, I think we are entitled to ask the leaders in India to refrain from suspicion and accept the conditions such as they are. Their co-operation will determine the rate of advance, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) has said, we ought to hasten slowly. Events in the East move slowly. India for a thousand years did not advance, and to bring the fruits of Western civilisation suddenly to a country where more than 90 per cent. of the population are illiterate would be fatal. They do not understand Western civilisation and Western ideas of government. India is a vast country of which over one-third belongs to native States, and with a population speaking more than 40 different languages. How are you going to institute any form of Dominion status there? Give them self-government bit by bit. Educate them slowly up to the time when it may be possible to give them full self-government, but it will have to be a slow process. What India wants most of all, and what is even more important than Dominion status, is racial equality within the Empire. That is their demand and that is what they really want.
It is not so much the form of Government about which they are concerned as the demand that they should be considered as racial equals throughout the Empire, and if you grant them that concession and then, bit by bit, give them the forms of government which they need, you will go a long way towards conciliating all the inhabitants of India. While doing that, and while backing up the Viceroy in his conciliatory policy we ought to assure ourselves at the same time as trustees for that country, that law and order are being upheld with firmness. We ought to prevent subversive elements going into that country and
creating disturbances such as have happened at Bombay and Calcutta. While welcoming this Motion, I ask the Secretary of State for India when he makes his statement, which I know will be a conciliatory one, to assure us at the same time that those who are accused or have been proved guilty of revolutionary crimes will be dealt with firmly, and that there will be no sign of weakness in the Government of India in that respect.

Major GRAHAM POLE: I am very glad, indeed, that my first speech in this House should be on a subject that has been very near my heart for at least the last 20 years. During that time I have gone out to India on seven or eight different occasions, and I have toured it from North to South and from East to West. I have lived in Indian homes, I have met Indian people, and I have been in Indian villages. I have also gone among the others, the military men, the Indian civil servants; but if I desired to see India, I would not adopt the advice of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) and go round the country with a Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner. He is the last man with whom I would choose to go round and see the conditions of the country. I would go round with an Indian who belonged to the place, who knew the place, a kind of thing that was impossible to do 20 years ago. Even a much shorter time ago than that, if you travelled in a railway train with an Indian, or drove in a motor car with an Indian, you were supposed to be lowering the British Raj.
I was very glad to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford say that what we really required was racial equality within the Empire for India, but what we require first is racial equality in India for Indians. There is no racial equality in India to-day, but it is getting better than it was. Only a few years ago there was anything but racial equality there, and there is one thing to the credit of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, and that is that they have made for racial equality, because in the Indian Legislative Assembly and the Indian Legislative Councils Indians and British meet on equal terms. In Bombay, if you are a white man, you go on arrival to the Bombay Yacht club and
lunch there, but if you are an Indian, it does not matter if you are a Maharajah, you dare not go in there. There was one man, an English solicitor's clerk, who took me in there, and he said to me, "This to us is sacred soil." That is the kind of spirit that we want to get out of India altogether and out of those who go to India and live in India.
My great difficulty in taking anything from those who have lived in India, especially if they have been in the Services, as actual fact for India, is that they go out to one province, spend 20 years or more in that province, and learn the language there, but they do not move from that province. They know the conditions of that province to a certain extent, but they do not know the conditions of other parts of India, and I have found the most appalling ignorance among civil servants in India about the conditions in other provinces in that country. You have also this difficulty, that whenever a man is in an official position, it is not very easy to get an Indian to speak to him quite frankly and openly, as he will to one who is not in an official position. We have heard that India for 1,000 Years has not advanced. India in the last 20 years has advanced—

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I meant before that.

Major POLE: I agree, but you have had 1,000 years' advance in the last 15 years.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: That is much too fast.

9.0 p.m.

Major POLE: You had the first signs of that advance when, an Eastern nation going to war with a Western nation—Japan with Russia—and the Eastern nation being victorious, it made every Eastern hold himself straighter. It made every Eastern feel that he was able to be on an equality with the Western. Then the Great War came, and you had Indians brought into Europe to fight white people, put on an equality with white people, asked to fight white people, and they did fight white people. Then during the war we promised them responsible government. It has been said, and quite truly,
that there is nothing new in the Viceroy's statement with regard to Dominion status. There is nothing new. That was practically promised during the War in the Montagu statement in this House in August, 1917, but although we all understood that that meant Dominion government at some time, and that we were going to have progression towards Dominion government, it is also the fact that while Lord Reading was Viceroy of India, and when there was a debate in the Indian Legislative Assembly on the attainment of Dominion status by India, the Home Member of Lord Reading's Government got up in that House—a very able and clever man—and gave a very able and clever speech to prove that what we had said did not mean what they all understood and what we had all understood, up to that time, that it meant. He said that responsible government did not mean self-government, that it did not mean Dominion status at all, that Dominion status might follow, but that it did not necessarily follow; and in any event, he said, that was a further and a final step.
It was that statement that made the Indians again wonder if they could put any belief or trust in the British Government. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford said we always have carried out our promises in the East and that we have kept our word. I wish we had. I wish that were in the least part true in India. Let me read what was said by a very distinguished Viceroy of India. The late Lord Lytton, when he was Viceroy of India, writing to the Secretary of State in an official despatch on 2nd May, 1878, in regard to official promises that had been made to India, said:
We all know that these expectations never can, or will, be fulfilled. We have had to choose between prohibiting them and cheating them; we have chosen the least straightforward course … Since I am writing confidentially, I do not hesitate to say that both the Governments of England and of India appear to me, up to the present moment, unable to answer satisfactorily the charge of having taken every means in their power of breaking to the heart the words of promise they had uttered to the ear.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is not that like the present Government have done in regard to their election promise?

Major POLE: This is far too serious a subject for the light, flippant way in which it is treated by some of the Members on the Tory benches. There are only four Conservative Members present at this important Debate, and I think the hon. and gallant Member might treat it with the seriousness which the subject deserves. The present Viceroy's statement has met with a wonderful response throughout India, and it has effected this complete change of feeling because they believe in it. They think now that that spirit that even animated that declaration in the Assembly during the Viceroyalty of Lord Reading, when the promise of Dominion status was tried to be explained away, has gone. The Indians feel that now they have a Viceroy in whom they can absolutely trust, whose word they can trust, and they want to see India go, not slowly, as we are always being told from the benches opposite that India must go, but they want and I want to see things go on as quickly as they can. I do not say it will be this year, next year, or when it is going to be, but I do say that we should go on as quickly as it can be made to go on, as quickly as we can get the Indian people to work with us. To urge them to go slowly is a fatal doctrine if you really want cooperation from the Indians with you.
The Indians now believe that this is an earnest of the desire of the Government to help them to go on as quickly as they can, an indication that we mean to deal with the problem of Indian self-government, in a manner consistent with our belief in their right to Dominion status as an equal partner in the commonwealth of nations, at the earliest moment that it can be achieved. None of us is going to pretend that there are not difficulties in the way; there are a thousand difficulties in the way. No one knows that more than the Indians themselves, and no one will have more difficulty in clearing away those difficulties than the Indians. The real difficulties are not on this side; they are in India, and only the Indians can get rid of them. Mr. Gandhi, a man who is tremendously reverenced in, India, who has been the leader of the Non-cooperatives there, writing in his paper "Young India" says:
Let me repeat what I have said before in these pages that I am dying for co-
operation. My non-co-operation is a token of my earnest longing for real co-operation.
Then he goes on to say:
I can wait for a dominion status if I can get real dominion status in action; if, that is to say, there is a real change of heart, a real desire on the part of the British people to see India a free and self-respecting nation, and on the part of the official in India a true spirit of service.
That is really what we want, a real spirit of service. I heard it said 15 years ago in India that the real objection to the Indian Civil Service in India, as an Indian told me, is three-fold. In the first place, it was not Indian; in the second place, it was not civil; and in the third place, it was not a service, because they are masters. I do not say that is true to-day. I have the greatest admiration for members of that service, among whom are relatives and friends of my own. The reason why we are there is not the "Daily Mail" reason, or the "Morning Post" reason. These papers have told us that we are there, not as trustees for the downtrodden masses, as we have been told so often from the Conservative Benches, but as trustees for the capital invested by British people in India. I hope that the Secretary of State can point to the signs that Mr. Gandhi looked for in regard to dominion status, and I believe that he can. One of the promises that was broken was that made in 1924 when the Reforms Inquiry Committee was set up. At that time the Prime Minister, who is now also Prime Minister, said that we really meant that to be a business committee, and that we meant to act on the result of their work. Just before the Committee reported, the General Election came and a Conservative Government came back into office and power. Although believing in continuity of policy, they forgot all about it in this case; that promise was absolutely broken, and nothing from that day to this has happened as the result of that inquiry.
We had a tremendous amount of opposition in this country, chiefly from the Conservative Benches, to the Viceroy's statement and the dominion status declaration. There was nothing new in that; it was what we had believed in ever since 1917, and what Members of all parties have said. But what they did not attack was the round table confer-
ence, which was proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) and accepted by all parties. The most British of British papers which supports the British cause in India, the "Statesman" of Calcutta, said that they were amazed at the opposition in this country to the Viceroy's statement. They said that when Lord Birkenhead was at the India Office he had not attended to his work there. This paper which normally supports the Conservative party, said that they were very glad that Lord Irwin and the present Secretary of State were trying to save what they could from the "wreck of the Birkenhead." I have heard that same Noble Lord, when he was Secretary of State for India, make a speech in another place in which he twice referred to Indians as "natives." A Secretary of State for India should at least have known that that word was banned by the Government of India years and years before, and that no Government official in India would be allowed to use it, because it has the same connotation in India as the word "nigger." That is the man in whose hands their destinies were placed. Even the "Morning Post" says that if you are to go ahead with the dominion status declaration of the Viceroy, you will soon have to open a fund for Anglo-Indians; and by Anglo-Indians the "Morning Post" means Europeans living in India, but everyone there knows that it means Eurasians.
The "Daily Mail" points out that one-ninth of our exports go to India, and it asks us to keep a firm hand on India, and to rule India by force practically, so that we can get more exports to India. The best way to do that is to have a friendly India, an India that wants to trade with you. Now that their fiscal policy is in their own hands, we cannot force them. I spoke last night to an Indian official of some 20 years' standing about trade with India, and he said that in his own part of the country his was practically the only English motor car. He said that it is not that the Indians do not think English motor cars are good, but that the mood in India has been such that they will not buy a British thing if they can get another. That is very serious. What we want is a change of mind on the part of the Indians, and we can only get that
if we have the spirit which is conveyed in the Viceroy's declaration and in the Secretary of State's speech in this House. It is no use if that spirit is only in the India Office and in. the Viceregal Ledge. It must go right dawn through all the officials in India, through all the local government, and through all the officials of the local government.
I would like to mention the case of sedition that has been referred to, and to say that many of the things objected to there were published in other journals in India, and the local government did not think it worth while—and very wisely—to go against the editors. In the Punjab the editor of the "People" of Lahore published many of the passages objected to. The editor of the "Indian Review" in Madras published many of the things that were objected to, and he has since been appointed by the Government a member of the Council of State. The Madras Government and the Punjab Government did not seem to think, therefore, that it would do very much harm. I hope we shall have that same spirit animating not merely the Secretary of State and the Viceroy but the Provincial Governments and the executive offices all the way down.
There is only one other thing to which I want to allude, and that is the question of sedition in India and what prosecutions can be brought. A very famous Section under which many of those prosecutions have been brought, Section 124a of the Indian Penal Code, has been quoted in full by my hon. Friend who moved the Motion, and so I shall not quote it again, but under that if you bring Government into hatred or contempt in India, or, indeed, if you bring any class into hatred or contempt, you can be prosecuted for it. If the "Daily Mail" of London had been published in India, its editor would have been had up for sedition for his leading article of yesterday. It dealt with the £6,000,000 of Indian Treasury Bills that we put upon the London market here. The leader was headed, "Do not lend the money," and said:
This is the precise moment when the Indian Nationalists are threatening disorder and bloodshed if they are not given Dominion Home Rule in the New Year.
That is absolutely false, and they know it is false, and any paper that writes that kind of thing at a time when we are trying to get better trade between this country and India—well, it is a pity we have not Section 124a here, because if the Government here could put the editor of the "Daily Mail" and its proprietor into the dock and put them away for three years, which is the penalty in India, I think it might do quite a great deal of good, and they richly deserve it for many of the things they say. They go on to say in that leading article that Dominion Home Rule must destroy the whole financial stability of India. If the "Daily Mail" wrote that about a commercial company that was advertising for £6,000,000 or £6,000, they could be brought up in the Law Courts and could be dealt with very severely for damaging it. They could not get away in India, and yet they are allowed to get away here. Under the wonderful regime under which we live, the "Daily Mail" can say almost anything it likes. Then they say:
It is a disastrous mistake on the part of the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, to raise false hopes of Rome Rule by his rash declaration last October, and his irresolute attitude has strengthened all those subtle forces which, as Mr. Churchill said yesterday in his vigorous speech to the Essex Unionists, are now so busily at work undermining British authority in India.
I think that is trying to bring the Viceroy of India and the Indian Government into contempt, if not hatred. We owe a great deal to the Conservative party for having appointed Lord Irwin as Viceroy of India. I think there never was a Viceroy whom India appreciated better and who appreciated India better than Lord Irwin. He has got that insight, that imagination, that is so lacking in the West—at least unless you happen to come from Scotland or Wales.

Mr. DEVLIN: Or Ireland!

Major POLE: Or Ireland. I apologise. Ireland has imagination. I think our Secretary of State for India also has that imagination. He has got more of it lately, because he sits now for a Scottish constituency. I think those two together have done a tremendous thing, not merely for India and not merely for this country, but for the peace of the world. They are working together and we ought to do everything we can to back them up in that work, and to induce our
friends in India, with whom our words can have any weight, to believe in their sincerity, to realise that they really mean this, that they are going through with it, and that they intend to help India in every way that India can be helped; further to bring the Indians to realise that the greatest of our difficulties are in India, and that we look to them to help us; and to urge them to come over here to this Conference, urge them to believe in us, urge them to co-operate with us. Those of us who can help in that way will be doing a tremendous work for the peace of the whole world.

Sir PATRICK FORD: Far be it from me to question the wisdom of the Chair in allowing debate to take any course that is not strictly within the four corners of the Motion, but having listened with great interest to the hon. and gallant Member for South Derbyshire (Major Pole), whom I have met in contest before now, I think I am justified in asking the Chair to accord to me a similar latitude if I seem to stray from the exact words of the Motion.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We usually give some latitude to maiden speeches.

Sir P. FORD: I would like to mention that it is not my maiden speech. The Motion seemed to me to be a very harmless and general sort of Motion, to which we could all agree, but whilst I congratulate the hon. Member upon a most interesting speech I must take exception to some of the implications in that speech. I do not think that anything done by the present Government or suggested by the Opposition has at all conflicted with the general idea of this Motion. If I am in order I will read it:
To call attention to the political situation in India; and to move, That this House welcomes the evidence of the co-operation of Indian representatives in the settlement of the constitutional question and relies upon the Government of India to encourage good will by the sympathetic conduct of its administrative and executive functions, particularly in relation to the expression of political opinion.
Having read that Motion I feel confirmed in my belief that the whole discussion is rather beside the point, because there is no doubt that all that this Government and the previous Government and the Viceroy, who has been so justly eulogised by the hon. and gallant Member and who was appointed by the late Government—
all that they have done has been, to my mind, to call rather too much upon the expression of opinion in India. If I arouse for a moment any harsh feeling by saying I think they may have done too much in calling upon the expression of opinion in India, I would like to point out that I have, through family relationships, been connected indirectly with the Government of India—through a cousin twice removed, I admit. A cousin of mine was not only a member of the Viceroy's Council but was successively the Governor of two important provinces in India. I believe he was the only Governor to whom in both of those Provinces the natives, if I may use the term, put up a statue in commemoration of the good work they consider he did for India.
I am a native of Scotland and I do not mind being called a native, and why the natives of India should object to being called natives I do not know. I am not, therefore, talking with any bias against those who were born in India, but when we talk of getting on as rapidly as possible towards Dominion status and as quickly as we can to changes in the constitutional Government of India, it must be remembered that the Indian peoples—because there is no single Indian people—are as old a growth in civilisation as our own, perhaps an older one, that there are thousands of different dialects, tribes and peoples in India, and we cannot assume, if we hand over the Government to a section that is more vocal than powerful, that we are doing justice to India. I think a great many people in this House do not recognise the vast size of India geographically, the differences of conditions, climatic, traditional, ethnic and otherwise, the vast difference there is between all the sections of the people of India.
To whom are you going to hand over India? Apparently, to the people who are most vocal; but what about the Ryots, the peasants of India? What about the Indian Princes, who have been very loyal to this Empire? Are the Bengalis, who are virtually the main spring of this agitation, the true representatives of Indian natives? We, who have vast responsibility, whether we obtained our Empire in India by influence or by conquest, or both, are left with a great trusteeship for law and order and equal justice. I would like to indicate this.
There are the Ghurkas and other regiments of that type. I would like to give perfectly directly the opinion of the natives who belong to these hill tribes. There was an Indian officer whom I knew quite well in one of the native regiments and he was, as it were, a father and elder brother to his men. When he came to this country, they wrote to him and asked him to look after certain of their interests. Two of these men came to him and said: "We have a dispute about some land and would like a Sahib officer to give a decision." He said: "That is not my function at all; I am entirely in the Army. You go to the Civil Service Wallah." They said: "That is all right; if we can get a real Sahib we trust him. But we are poor men and we may have to go through a great many Civil Service Wallahs who are not Sahibs, and we cannot afford to do it."
That is the attitude of the least vocal but by far the greater number of the people of India. They do not believe in this Bengali attitude that you must have an Indian Civil Service running India. They believe in a Sahib, and if we withdraw that protection from what they well know is the danger of tribal or party feeling on the part of the native rulers of India, they feel that they will be deprived of their appeal to a justice which they regard as above suspicion. We must remember that, while it is perfectly right that the educated Indian, whether he be Mohammedan or Hindu of the North or the South, or any of the innumerable sects, castes and religious differences of opinion and tradition, should have a fair chance of representing his views, it is impossible in India to-day, and it will take years and generations before you can get a general belief in India in the rule of any one section of Indians. I cannot see how, in any Parliaments we might have there, you would get a belief, in the majorities that might arise in those Parliaments, that genuine justice would be done and that all the different sections would feel that they were properly represented. It is a different thing in this country because, making all allowance for differences of accent and intonation, we speak the same language, and have, broadly speaking, the same body of tradition; but in India there are traditions, religions and sections of opinion entirely different. The
whole tradition of India has been government by a dominating race that has imposed equal justice, as far as possible, on all sections. None of the dominating races has gone so far as our dominating race has gone in giving incorruptible, even justice to men, women and children of whatever tribe, caste, religion or section they may be.
Therefore, I maintain that we are faced with a very difficult constitutional question in India, and only the efforts which, under us and by us, have been made for the real and genuine education—not merely a sort of babu type of education that produces a ridiculous false culture, but the real and genuine education of all the peoples of India—only the effort we have made and that has been made by the Indians themselves under our rule, has produced a real, widespread grasp of education and of the subjects that really affect India. We have in this country today a great electorate which really has, through the education which it has demanded for itself and which has been given to it, the intellect and the trained intelligence to grasp political questions. Until we had that state of affairs—which we are far from having in the teeming millions of India to-day—we have a mockery of democracy, and, what is more likely, a domination of the more lowly tribes and castes in India. If instead of a beneficent holder of the ring who sees fair play, we withdraw and precipitately give Dominion Home Rule to India, we do not get what are our western ideas of Dominion Home Rule, but we shall get chaos and domination of a far less fair-minded dominating class than we have got to-day. I admit the logic of the appeal which has been made to us from the opposite benches, but do not let us make the mistake of giving a gift before the people are sufficiently educated to benefit by its acceptance. Let us go slowly and carefully. There is nothing in the Motion we are discussing, as I read it, which is in any sense a censure upon the present Government or upon any past Government, but I do think that there is a distinct section of people who, however excellent their intentions may be, want to force the pace. You would not give a box of matches to a child to set fire to a heap of wood shavings if near those shavings there was a quantity of gun-powder; but when that child had acquired sense and wanted a
good fire at which to warm himself, you might give him matches without any risk.
In matters of this kind you have to proceed slowly and carefully, and while I do not disagree with this Motion, I want to make it quite clear that it should not be interpreted in the sense which was suggested by the last speaker. It has been suggested we should co-operate as far as possible with all that is really representative, educative, and progressive in India, but we should not force the way before the great mass of opinion in India is educated up to a realisation of the great and responsible burden of Dominion status, which is one of the greatest responsibilities that can be placed upon any people.

Mr. THURTLE: I would like to take this opportunity of being the first hon. Member on this side of the House to extend my congratulations to the hon. and gallant Member for South Derbyshire (Major Pole) for the excellent speech which he has just delivered. It was an extraordinarily well-informed and able statement of the Labour point of view with regard to India, and I am sure that every hon. Member of this House will feel that the hon. and gallant Member will be a great acquisition to this House in our Debates on India which must take place in the clays to come. The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) has been trying to establish two propositions. One of them was that British rule in India has conferred extraordinary benefits on that country. I understand that the hon. Member for North Edinburgh is a Scotsman, and therefore he must have a deep sense of nationality, but I wonder whether it has ever occurred to him that the Indian people and Indian nationalists may feel that bad self-government is preferable to the kind of government which they now possess.

Sir P. FORD: My argument was devoted to showing that while we may have to be divided into three kingdoms in this country, we still possess the status of nationality. On the other hand there is no Indian nationality.

Mr. THURTLE: The people of India include many different races, but they are living in their native country, and it seems to me that, diverse and scattered though they may be in character and
race, they still have a better title to rule India than the British. The hon. Member for North Edinburgh argued that there was only a very small percentage of the Indian nation which was really sufficiently educated to be able to take charge of the Government of that country. I submit that, small as the number of the politically-educated and politically-minded Indian people may be, they are certainly much better equipped, and they have a much better title to govern India, than the people we send over to India from Whitehall and other places.

Mr. FOOT: Is that opinion fully shared by those who are called the Untouchables?

Mr. THURTLE: I am not qualified to express the views of the Untouchables. As far as I know I think there are about 40,000,000 of them in India.

Major POLE: About 28,000,000.

Mr. THURTLE: Twenty-eight millions is a considerable number, but that is only a comparatively small proportion of the whole, and the Untouchables apart, if we take all those peasants who are not politically educated and politically minded, we shall find that they will always follow the educated Indian in preference to the British. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] You only need to see some of the great demonstrations in Calcutta and Bombay to notice that although these people are not educated, the educated leaders are looked upon as expressing the hopes and aspirations of the great Indian masses.
I want to direct attention most particularly to the terms of this Motion. We welcome the fact that there is evidence of co-operation of the Indian representatives with those who are seeking to give India greater self-government, and that evidence has arisen because of the proposal to establish a round-table conference. I think that was a wise and necessary piece of statemanship, because it is an open secret that the Simon Commission, which went out to inquire into the constitutional position of India, did not command the confidence and support of the representative opinion of India. You can take the most extreme or the most moderate political organisations in India and you will find that all of them are united in resenting the fact that a Commission should he sent to
India to find out how much or how little self-government should be conceded to the people of India.
The Indian nationalists say that they ought to have self-government as a right. They say: "We are prepared to join with you as equals at a round-table conference to find out the best means by which that right can be conceded to us." The present Government, with the assistance of the Viceroy, have seen the reason of that demand; they have seen the equity of it; and, because they realised that it was essential that the co-operation of all the organised opinion in India should be obtained, if any success was to come out of this inquiry, they have called this round-table conference. But even now it is not certain that it is going to be fully responded to by the representatives of Indian opinion. A very important conference is to take place at Lahore on the day after Christmas. There the great Indian National Congress is to decide whether or not it will take part in this round-table conference, and there are elements in that Congress which are suggesting that they should refuse to have any part or lot in the conference. The position has been complicated and made much more serious by some blazing indiscretions on the part of so-called responsible statesmen in this country. There was a Debate only a few weeks ago in another place, in the course of which a statement was made by an ex-Secretary of State for India, and, as an ex-Secretary of State for India, his words carry tremendous weight in India.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that it is not in order to quote from statements made in another place.

Mr. THURTLE: I was only saying that a statesman who has held very high office in the Government of this country was responsible for a statement a few weeks ago to the effect that India—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now doing the very thing that I said he must not do.

Mr. THURTLE: I will put it in this way. It has become known in recent weeks in India that there are statesmen in this country of high standing—or perhaps I ought not to use that term in connection with the statesman to whom I am referring—there are statesmen well known
in India who hold the opinion that India will not be fit for self-government for 100 years to come. To put myself perfectly in order, I would draw attention to the fact that the Leader of the opposition in this House a few weeks ago said that it would be many generations before the goal of Dominion self-government was attained by India. I want to submit to the House that, in the present critical situation in India such statements as that are highly mischievous, because you have in that country a great mass et ardent youth fired with this great ideal of national freedom, and you are telling them, from responsible mouths in this country, that not they in their generation, not their children, not their children's children, can hope to see the day when India shall be a free nation. I submit that for responsible statesmen in this country to talk in that fashion is to incite young Indian Nationalists to leave the path of constitutionalism and adopt other and much more deplorable methods.
It is a. remarkable fact that the great subject of study in India in these days, among the youth and the politicians of that country, is the subject of the struggles of Ireland for freedom. You find them reading all the details of the way in which Ireland, from 1914 onwards, fought and struggled by various methods and in various ways to achieve national freedom, and that is sinking into the minds of these young people. An Indian law student came to see me a few months ago. He seemed to be a very rational clear-headed young man, but he told me that he had been over to Dublin, and somewhere in Dublin, as I understand, there is a great cemetery where large numbers are buried who fell in the struggles for Irish freedom. He told me that he had been in that cemetery and, had seen those graves, and he said: "My opinion is that the British Government is not going to give us justice, and that we have got to pay the same price for our Indian freedom." I would remind the House that, if the unhappy day does Dome when the Indian people resort to the kind of things which happened in Ireland in the days that are past, the blood which will be shed in India will be a vast ocean compared with that which was shed in Ireland in those days.
As against this idea that India may have to wait 100 years or 10 generations
for her freedom, I want to urge that there is no reason at all why India should not get her freedom within a comparatively short space of time. She did get one thing out of the discussion which took place recently in this House, and that was an honest admission from the Conservative side of the House that there was to be eventually absolute equality for India so far as Dominion status was concerned. The Leader of the Opposition himself admitted on behalf of the Conservative party that the idea of any inferiority in the status of India in the British Commonwealth of Nations is unthinkable. Therefore, it comes down to this, that the question which is dividing us is as to the time at which this status shall be attained, and I want to submit that, contrary to what has been said, there is nothing in the existing Constitution, there is nothing in the existing enactments, which would prevent India from getting Dominion status after the Simon Commission has reported. I know that that view has been questioned, but may I draw the attention of the House to the real facts of the case? This situation is governed by the Preamble to the Government of India Act, 1919, which speaks of:
The gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in British India as an integral part of the Empire.
It goes on to say:
And whereas progress in giving effect to this policy can only be achieved by successive stages … it is expedient that substantial steps in this direction should now be taken.
It is, therefore, perfectly permissible to argue that that Act of 1919 was one substantial stage in the direction of Dominion self-government. Let it be remembered that nothing is specified as to the number of these successive stages; they may he 10, they may be only two. One stage was taken in 1919. It continues:
And … the time and manner of each advance can be determined only by Parliament.
I submit that, if the representatives of India come to this round-table conference, as I hope and pray that they will, if they come there and argue their case for Dominion status, and are able to convince this Parliament of the justice of their demand, there is nothing at all in the constitutional situation to prevent
Parliament from deciding in its wisdom that the very next step shall be the final step, and that, after that, India shall be a free self-governing partner in the British community of nations.
There is only one other point that I want to dwell upon and that is in connection with the last half of this Motion, which deals with the conduct of administrative and executive functions, particularly in relation to the expression of political opinion. Anyone who is familiar with the history of India for the last few years, must realise that things have been happening there which are not a credit to the British Parliament. It is a great boast of the British people that they believe in freedom of opinion. It is a great boast of the British people that they do not believe in clapping people into gaol and keeping them there without a fair trial. But in the past few years there has been a great deal of that kind of thing happening. People have been taken by the police, put into gaol and kept there two and three years without any sort, of trial. That kind of thing is altogether contrary to our ordinary conception of British justice. The excuse that was given in those days was that, if those men were released, great harm would come to the Government of India. In time all these people who were interned under the Bengal Criminal Ordinance have been released, and all these alleged potential criminals have been free for many months, and it is impossible for the Government of India to point to a single one as having taken advantage of his freedom and committed any act of violence or any seditious act.
That kind of treatment of the Indian people is bound to arouse intense resentment, and I support the appeal that has been made to the Secretary of State to use his influence in the strongest possible manner with the Government of India to get that sort of policy stopped. I should like to warn him that he is not likely to get much co-operation from some of the officials in India in this kind of policy, because in the past years officials have been saying to Indian nationals: "You may protest against this kind of thing, you may say it is due to a Conservative Government, but you will get no different treatment under a Labour Government." If only to keep up to that kind of attitude, there will be
officials who will seek to thwart the Secretary of State if he attempts to introduce into the Indian system of justice a better conception of British justice.
10.0 p.m.
I assure my right hon. Friend that there is a desire on the part of the great bulk of the Indian Nationalist Movement to come forward and co-operate in getting self-government, but they will not do it unless they can be convinced that there is a different attitude of mind prevailing in the British Government now from what prevailed during the last Conservative Government. I should like to ask him to do one thing amongst others. There should expire at the end of this year an instrument of oppression called the Bengal Criminal Ordinance. I should like him to-night, before this National Congress takes place at Lahore, to announce that it is not the intention of the Government to have that Ordinance, which empowered the Government of India to imprison people without trial, re-enacted. I should also like him to assure us that he is going to consider the cases of those people who are at present suffering imprisonment and release every possible one who is imprisoned because of his political opinions. No one on this side asks him to release any man who has a case proven against him of violence. If he will release those who have been imprisoned purely for political opinions, I am sure he will create such a response as will decide the National Congress to send its representatives over to the round table conference and do their best to hammer out a constitution which will give India self-government.

Sir SAMUEL HOARE: I welcome the chance of saying a few words in this Debate, for I cannot help remembering that the most interesting and the pleasantest incident of the whole of my life was a visit I made to India by air two or three years ago, a visit very interesting in itself, but pleasant also for the fact that it gave me a chance of renewing on the spot many personal friendships that I made with Indians both at school and at the University. When I heard there was going to be a Debate this evening I was afraid we should have a second chapter of the Debate that ended rather hurriedly some weeks ago. I do not know how that Debate struck most Members, but it left
the unpleasant impression upon me that for the first time for several years the unity of the party in front towards Indian questions had been momentarily broken up. I hope and believe this Debate is going to show India that the unity of parties towards Indian questions is reconstituted, and I hope it is also going to send to India a unanimous message of good will at a very critical moment in the history of both Great Britain and of India itself. I think the House can congratulate itself that the Debate up to this point has gone, on the whole, in the direction we all desire. We listened with great interest to the very able speech of the Mover. I cannot say I agreed with any detail in it, but I can tell him, and I am sure it was the opinion of everyone who heard it, that we were much struck by its ability and its sincerity. We were very much interested also in the maiden speech of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Major Pole). It was the kind of speech that makes us hope we shall often have an opportunity of hearing his interventions in debate in the future.
I can say for myself, and I believe for the Members of my party, that we are perfectly prepared to support the Motion. It is in two parts. The first states the satisfaction of the House at the increasing signs of goodwill and cooperation in India. There can be no differences of opinion upon a proposal such as that. The second half of the Motion I myself should have thought was quite harmless, and I should also have thought that it was unnecessary. It is something in the nature of a reminder to the Secretary of State and to the Viceroy to carry out their duties in a very responsible task. I should have much preferred to have left it to the Viceroy, without any reminder from this House, to deal in his own way with the question of political prosecutions and the kind of implications suggested in the second part of the Motion. I should have preferred that in this Debate nothing should have been said upon the question of these prosecutions, and particularly upon a trial that is actually sub judice. We are prepared, and I believe the great majority of the Members of this House are prepared, to leave questions of that kind to the discretion of the Viceroy. After all, the Viceroy is not a hard-faced, rigid, narrow-minded
man. He is a man in whose judgment, sympathy and wisdom all of us have the greatest confidence. The hon. and gallant Member for South Derbyshire was amongst the first to pay tribute to those qualities in his speech this evening. It is certainly much better for us in this House not to attempt to interfere with the discretion of the Viceroy in questions of this kind. We have no reason to distrust him. It is much better to leave the subject in his hands and to trust to his wisdom and to his sympathy in dealing with it.
As the question has been raised, let me only say this, in addition to what I have just said. I would ask the Secretary of State for India when he comes to reply to make it quite clear in his speech, as I understand he has already made it clear in the answers to questions in the House, that he has no intention of bringing pressure from Whitehall to bear upon the Viceroy in dealing with the question of a political amnesty or the prosecution which is now actually sub judice. Hon. Members on this side of the House will be relieved to hear him repeat in this Debate the intention which he has already stated in answer to questions, namely, that he is prepared, as we are prepared, to leave this question to the uncontrolled discretion of the Viceroy and the Government of India.
I come to the first part of the Motion, the part which deals with the welcome signs of increasing goodwill and cooperation amongst representative individuals and representative organisations in India. I think that if I had been drafting this Motion I should have made it even wider, and I should have included in it not only the Indian representatives and the Indian organisations which are showing increasing signs of goodwill, but I should have included in it also the European association, the representative organisation of the British subjects who are living and working in India,. There is no feature in the present situation in India so significant as the remarkable unanimity which has been shown during the last few weeks upon the proposal made by the Viceroy for the Conference after the issue of the Simon Report; a unanimity, as I say, not only of representative Indian individuals and representative Indian organisations in British India, but a
unanimity also of the Indian princes and of the European Association, the association which represents the body of British opinion amongst British subjects living and working in India. One and all have welcomed the proposal of the conference. One and all are agreed that the conference, if wise use is made of the opportunity that it affords, is going to play a most useful part in helping us to solve the difficulties with which we are confronted. I would suggest that, from the point of view of this House, and from the point of view of the British Parliament, we also can give the conference a unanimous and a very definite welcome. I believe that there are many questions which we shall have to discuss in the next year or two upon which the conference can give us very valuable help, questions that no doubt suggest themselves to many hon. Members, questions, for instance, like those dealing with the treatment of minorities, one of the most difficult of all Indian questions; questions, again, such as those connected with the relation of the provinces to the Central Government, and questions like those connected with the relations of the Indian States to British India.
On questions such as these it would be of the utmost value that we should have at our disposal, when we come to consider future legislation, the opinion of a representative body such as we hope the conference will mean, and particularly if that opinion is the agreed opinion of representative individuals and representative organisations in India. Indeed, so important does the conference appear to be, so essential a stage does it mark in the processes through which we must pass when we come to consider legislation in the next year or two, that I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India will seize the first opportunity of taking the House into his confidence with reference to the conference. I do not mean that here and now he should make a definite statement about the details of the conference. I agree that the time is premature for that. I do not mean to suggest that he should say anything that would embarrass the Viceroy in making the arrangements which he will have to make for bringing the conference into being, but I do say to him that he should, and I feel sure he will, as soon as a decision has been arrived at, take the House into his confidence
and let us know the relevant details about the conference in time for the House of Commons to express its opinion upon them.
We do not wish to be faced at the eleventh hour with a decision given at so late a moment as to make it impossible for this House to express its opinion. We particularly want to know what the Terms of Reference will be for the Conference, what the representation will be upon it, and what will be its general procedure. I hope that the Secretary of State to-night will be able to tell the House, quite definitely and categorically, that he will give us information upon all these very important points at the earliest suitable opportunity. By that I mean at a time that will give the House a chance of expressing its opinion upon the decision at which he and the Viceroy will then have arrived. If the Secretary of State can give us that undertaking—an undertaking that I do not press him to carry out prematurely, and upon which I do not press him to make a detailed statement to-night—I see no reason why the message of this House to India to-night should not be a unanimous message.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition stated to the House the other day the views of the party that I represent towards the question we are now discussing. I can assure the Secretary of State for India that the members of the party for which I am speaking are only too ready to take their part, a sympathetic part, in helping to solve the difficulties with which Great Britain, the Empire and India are faced. On that account, I somewhat regret the attack that the Secretary of State made the other day, which was repeated to some extent by the hon. and gallant Member for South Derbyshire this evening, upon the administration of Indian affairs during the period that I was a Member of the late Government. The right hon. Gentleman will remember example after example which go to show that we were only too anxious to obtain the co-operation of representative Indians, whenever the opportunity arose. There was the case of the Central Indian Committee. We were glad to see that Committee set up. There were the Committees of representative Indians which were set up by the Provinces. There again, we were only too
ready to welcome Indian co-operation. Looking back over those years I cannot remember a single case, whether it was at the League of Nations at Geneva or whether it was at the Imperial Conference, in which we were not ready, and in which we could not have been more ready than we were, to welcome, without any reservation, the presence of Indian representatives in our Conferences.
That, it seems to me, is an illustration of the way in which Conservatives look at this problem. No questions connected with the Empire interest Conservatives more than questions connected with India. Indian tradition and history appeal to us in a very distinctive and arresting manner. Holding these views, we are only too anxious to take our part tonight in sending a message of good will to India, and to help in the years to come, with Indian co-operation, to work out the framework for the future Government of India; to remove any suspicions which may at the present cloud the relations between ourselves and India and bring about a state of affairs which will not only mean prosperity to Great Britain and India but also strengthen the forces of civilisation throughout the whole world.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): We are all entitled to congratulate ourselves from the Indian point of view on the Debate to-night. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Leyton East (Mr. Brockway) for the terms in which he moved his Motion. I know how strongly he feels about some of these things, and I realise that in the interests of unity as between ourselves and India, and in the interests of the plans we have in hand at the moment, he was stating his case with great restraint to which I bear tribute. I will not dwell upon the brilliant speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South Derbyshire (Major Pole)—he is on his own ground in this Debate—but I should like to thank the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) for enabling us to say that the House of Commons is engaged to-night in the not unworthy task of showing by a unanimous Motion a gesture of response to that very remarkable spirit of unity which has been exhibited in India in welcoming the Viceroy's Proclamation, a welcome which was associated with a list of names so
long and so diverse that I imagine it will be almost unparalleled in recent history.
There is a vast amount of good will in this country towards India. I do not suppose that they attach more than due weight to some of the newspaper articles which have been written about Indian affairs. I hope not. I do not think they are worthy of notice, except that it may be necessary to direct the attention of people overseas to the fact that they count for nothing in this country. The spirit of good will which exists is proved again in that remarkable manifestation at the recent meeting of the European Association, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and also by the more recent happening, a few clays ago, when the Baltic Exchange for the first time elected two Indian members on terms of absolute equality with British members to the exchange. To this spirit of good will, which is the one thing at which we should aim, the unanimous passing of this Motion by the Imperial Parliament will make no mean contribution. The hon. Member for East Leyton and the hon. Member who seconded the Motion made reference to cases of political prosecution in India, and to cases in general. He laid stress particularly on the case of Mr. Ramananda Chatterjee, who was proceeded against in connection with a book called "India in Bondage." The character of that book is the subject of inquiry by the High Court, and, therefore, he will forgive me if I make no comment upon it, or, for the same reason, upon the Meerut proceedings.
As regards the other cases, he mentioned a recommendation of the Bengal Jail Committee and two other cases. I would say, as I am bound in any case to do, that I will go most fully into the matter if he will give me precise details of what he has in mind. I would like, in passing, to make this reply to my hon. Friend who seconded the Motion: There is no object of policy dearer to the heart of the Government of India than the promotion of a real trade union movement in India. It is a very difficult task. There is very little to work on. There are organisations which are more an ad hoc strike committee than a real union, but the work of the Whitley Commission, which we owe to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, will largely and mainly be
directed to forming the basis on which a real trade union movement can be built up in India. It is no good attributing, as some people do, the riots and disorders in Bombay entirely to the wickedness of the Communists. Those who know sufficient, those who know the conditions under which labour lives and works in India, know that one has to go a good deal deeper even than the unwholesome activity of Communists to find the real causes and the real cure.
As regards the prosecutions in general, would remind my hon. Friend who moved the Motion that, in response to complaints which have been made about the treatment, not only of prisoners, but of those under trial, the Government of India have convened a conference between the provincial Governments and the Government of India, and that that conference is at present considering the matter in co-operation with unofficial opinion both of the Assembly and the Provincial Councils; so that the matter, which has been made the subject of much complaint at times, will, we hope, find a satisfactory solution. I am in great hopes that, with the new spirit abroad in India, we are closing what must be to us a very painful chapter. I am hoping that it is coming to an end. My hon. Friend and I are in agreement, and in agreement with Indian opinion, on two things at least: First of all we are all working to one definite, ascertained and advertised goal. That is to say that the difficult task of government is not merely a harsh and barren negative. We have the comfort of an active and responsive policy. The second point is this: Neither he nor I nor thoughtful Indian opinion desires this Government or any Government to weaken in the maintenance of peace. Especially at a time like the present, when constitutional changes of the greatest magnitude are being considered, it is essential that public order should be maintained. I believe that that statement will find a welcome and agreement widespread among Indians as well as ourselves. I wish that the task were not always on white shoulders, and I am glad to think that at this moment, in one Province at least, though only for a time—the Central Provinces —we have an Indian Governor who is charged with this difficult but necessary duty.
But I recognise, and I know that my hon. Friend recognises, that the real basis of order is not the police. The real basis of order is public good will. In this country it is not the uniformed constable who keeps order, but every citizen in mufti who keeps order, and Government is maintained on the basis of the co-operation and good will of the people. I believe that we are moving towards this state of affairs in India also. In answer to a question put by my hon. Friend I may say that I am informed by the Viceroy that at the moment he sees no circumstances which necessitate the re-enactment of the Public Safety Ordinance. As regards freedom of expression of opinion, my hon. Friend is very jealous of that principle, and so am I. It is not only desirable that we should have the freest expression of opinion in India, but at the present time it is a most helpful thing. We need it for our assistance in the task which we have before us. But we will look at these political campaigns as they would appear to realists, and to realists I would say this to-day—the winning card is argument and the losing card is non-co-operation. The winning card is argument particularly at this moment, because, by a startling change in procedure, to which I will make reference later, the Government have called a conference and have invited the Indian peoples to use argument as the means of achieving the purposes which they have in view.
The goal of British policy in India has been declared to be the achievement of Dominion status, and it may well be said —and a passage from Mr. Gandhi has been quoted—that words are not enough. It may be asked: "Can you show us any deeds to prove the sincerity of the new spirit of which you speak?" With the leave of the House, I desire to answer some questions which have been put in the course of the Debate, and, for that purpose, I must trace briefly in outline the history of some Indian events in the course of the last 10 years. In 1919 plenipotentiaries on behalf of India signed the Treaty of Versailles, and India became, as a separate entity, an original member of the League of Nations. That was a very significant stage in her history. In 1919 also a joint Parliamentary Committee met to examine the Montagu-
Chelmsford Bill and the Report of that Committee, which is not long, is well worth study. There are two passages to which I would draw special attention. They said:
Only in exceptional circumstances should the Secretary of State intervene in matters of purely Indian interest when the Government and the Legislature in India are in agreement.
That is on the general question, and to that principle I have attempted to conform in all the administrative decisions which I have had to make. They went further than that, particularly in reference to tariffs. In regard to this matter they said:
India should enjoy the same liberty to consider her interests in tariff matters as Australia, New Zealand, Canada or South Africa
—mentioning each of the Dominions existing at that time. As an opponent of tariffs I would never stir one inch from that definition of principle, because the principle of self-government is far greater than what I would call a matter of fiscal common sense. Nor would any Secretary of State attempt to lay a finger upon this principle of tariff autonomy which has been established in practice for 10 years in Indian affairs. There is Dominion status in action. There is a Dominion attribute which has now become part and parcel of the rights of India.
Take again the question of purchase of stores on which I have been questioned several times. In 1921 it was moved in the Legislative Assembly that, in the purchase of stores, the Government of India should buy in the market that seemed to them best without regard to pressure from the India Office. That Resolution was accepted by the Government of India and was accepted by the Secretary of State and is a principle to-day. It is because of that Resolution that I have replied to those questions which have been put to me on this subject to the effect that, in this matter, India must judge in India's interest. Much as we would welcome work for our people, much as we believe, as one speaker has put it, that by having the good will of the Indian peoples we shall find a readier market than by keeping them down by force—much as all this is true, it is not for the India Office to exercise pressure in the British interest upon India, or to hamper or curtail
India's freedom in making decisions in what she considers to be her own interest. In a word, the meaning of these things is this. They are not only Dominion status in action, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, but they show that the idea of the exploitation of India in the British interest has gone. It is past and done with. We have had 'some speeches quoted to-night by Members of this House, which I think were made a long time ago. I do not think you will find anybody in a responsible position to-day who will deny that in these domestic and economic respects to which I have referred India is already coming into possession, at a growing rate, of the attributes of Dominion status.
I do not know whether I ought to refer, as the Debate has been conducted upon what I am tempted to call a high level, to Lord Rothermere and the articles which have appeared in some of his newspapers, but I would like to say this, that if those articles were ever reprinted in book form—their merits hardly justify it—the book should be called, "How to lose India." There was one special article referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend to which I should like to make reference. The Government of India came into the market yesterday for £6,000,000 worth of 12 months' bills. Lord Rothermere publishes an article in his newspaper, the "Daily Mail," headed, "Don't lend the money." Who is asking for it? A part of the British Empire, and he publishes an article headed, "Don't lend the money." That is the new patriotism; that is the new Imperialism. I must mention the sequel Lord Rothermere has achieved considerable success in what I may call the humbler spheres of domestic literature. His advice to servant maids in love might be useful, might be amusing, his hints how to take stains out of table-cloths might be invaluable, but as for his financial advice, well—"Don't lend the money," says Lord Rothermere. What was the answer? £6,000,000 was asked for, £8,500,000 was offered!

Sir JOHN FERGUSON: How was the money to be spent? Perhaps he had in mind the fact that large contracts for rails and other railway material had gone to Germany, to the loss of about £300,000 in British wages.

Mr. BENN: I think the hon. Member could not have been in the House just
now, because I was explaining that India already has the Dominion attribute of freedom.

Sir J. FERGUSON: That information was in reply to a question which I put to the right hon. Member a few days ago.

Mr. BENN: Now let me pass for a moment from these domestic and economic questions to try and answer the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend as to whether we can show Dominion status in action. India, as everyone knows, has in London, an Indian acting as High Commissioner, and is thus in the same position in that respect as the other Dominions. India has Indians in every part of the world, finding the Government of India a valiant champion of their interests as British citizens, and recently the Government of India sent out to South Africa, to negotiate in regard to Indians in South Africa, one of the most distinguished members of their Government, Sir Muhammad Habibullah. India has played a large part in international labour matters, and the record of labour legislation in India in the last 10 years is a remarkable one. Sir Atul Chatterjee, a most distinguished Indian, is the present High Commissioner in London. India has a seat on the governing body of the International Labour Office and her own delegation, and she is free to, and frequently does, take a view different from that of the British delegation if their interests happen to clash.
At the last gathering of the League of Nations, the late Government caused the Indian delegation to be headed by an Indian for the first time. I would add that the more Indians it is possible to have upon the delegation to the League of Nations, the greater weight will India pull at Geneva, and the more will her national status be raised. Let me give further recent illustrations in answer to my hon. Friend who asked with regard to Dominion status in action. There was last week an International Air Navigation Commission Indian representatives attended and received a separate vote, exactly as the representatives of South Africa, Canada and the other States received. There has recently been held in London a most important conference dealing with Dominion legislation. India
was represented by a special delegation of its own, and sat side by side with Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the Irish Free State and the rest of them, though in point of fact, at this stage there were only certain matters dealing with shipping that directly concerned the Indian representatives. In the next few weeks, when the Five-Power Naval Conference meets in London, India will be represented by her own delegation. It is true that I have the honour of being one of the British delegates, but I shall not be at the head of the Indian delegation. She will be represented by her own delegation, and will thus make her own voice heard.

Mr. BROCKWAY: These representatives of India are at present all appointed by the Viceroy in Council. Cannot the Secretary of State for India try to secure more adequate representation of India itself by giving the Indian Legislative Assemblies some power in the appointment of these representatives?

Mr. BENN: That is a suggestion that I will certainly note, and I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for raising it. In the meantime, do not let us miss the moral of what I am saying, that, just as in the history of every Dominion, it has not been a matter of legislative change, but of use, custom, want and tradition, which have built up these powers, the same procedure is proceeding rapidly in the case of India to-day. Therefore, I think I may say—and I am not speaking of our own administration, but of every administration as well—that in deeds as well as in words, we have tried to prove the sincerity of our faith when we say that we desire to see India reach Dominion status. People often ask, has there been a change in policy? To some extent I have answered that question in what I have just said, but there is, of course, the great change in procedure to which reference has been made by the right hon. Gentleman and many others—I mean to say, the calling of the Conference. In one sense there is no change. When the Prime Minister replied to the Leader of the Opposition in the published correspondence, he stated quite clearly that, as far as the Statute is concerned, there is no change. The Statute remains, and it is outwith the power of anyone except Par-
liament, to change a policy which is embodied in a Statute.
In this matter of procedure there has been a great and important change which has been repeatedly asked for by leaders of Indian opinion in India, namely, this Round Table Conference. I was very glad indeed to hear the right hon. Gentleman exalt the importance of this Conference. He is right. It is a very important Conference. We are the servants, more particularly this Government are, of the House of Commons, and of course the House of Commons will be told timeously about the composition of the Conference, its terms of reference, and so on. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say, and I thank him for it, that he would not press me for more details at this moment, the reason being that plans are by no means complete. There are one or two things I can say about the Conference. We desire to see the Conference called at the earliest possible moment. At the same time, time is required for preparation. There is much matter to be received and to be considered. There is the Report of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) and his Commission, there are the opinions of the Government of India, there are the views of provincial Governments. All these matters must be duly considered, so that the Conference meets clothed with full knowledge. Let me make one thing clear about the Conference. It is partly in reply to the same question put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
The Conference is to be fully and fairly representative not of one section but of all sections, so that we may have there a real representation of political opinion as it finds itself in India. The Conference will meet with free hands. Some one asked whether they would consider the Bill. They will not consider it, they will not even consider draft proposals. They will meet absolutely free, and the Cabinet will certainly decide, settle and propose to the Conference nothing. The Conference is intended to be a free conference which permits every section of opinion to come forward and express itself and support its views with whatever argument may appear to the speaker to be most impressive.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will there not be the recommendations of the Simon Commission which will have been considered by this Government and by the provincial governments? Will not that be the terms of reference of this conference, or are they to be left a completely open field to re-open the whole Indian question again?

Mr. BENN: The hon. and gallant Member is asking me the question which I could not answer for his leader. The clearest definition of the function of the conference which we have been able to arrive at will be found in the Viceroy's Proclamation. Of course the matter that has been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member will be available to the Conference. So will the report of the Indian Central Committee, and so will many other relevant documents, including the opinions of the Government; all those matters will be available for the conference to discuss, and to formulate its views.

Mr. BROCKWAY: And the report of the Nehru Committee?

Mr. SENN: And the report of the Nehru Committee most decidedly. All these matters will be available. This Conference is not intended merely to be a sop to Indian opinion, a sort of douceur to please India, but to bring the light of Indian opinion to bear upon the problem and to help us in the solution of our difficulties, and to help Parliament when Parliament comes to examine and pass the Bill. We invite the co-operation of Indian opinion in this Conference.
There is one concluding word. There are many difficulties to be faced; there are great differences of opinion, wide gulfs and divergencies, not here but in India. We regret the differences, they are obstacles on the path which we wish to pursue, but we cannot solve them, and I express the devout hope that when the time comes for the Conference it may have been found possible amongst the Indians themselves to compose their differences so that we may have gentlemen coming here speaking with authority and speaking with unity. It is only in that way that we may get the maximum assistance and guidance for this House in its difficult task. I believe it is not too much to say that in this matter we are entering upon a
new era, we are attempting to enter what may be the greatest chapter in the history of the British Commonwealth, namely, a free and voluntary association of a great self-respecting nation in partnership with the British Commonwealth for the promotion of the good of the world.

Mr. WELLOCK: I have heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with great satisfaction. But we are facing a new situation in regard to India. I am one of those who believe that the situation in India is mainly a psychological question. The history of the last hundred years has been such that we have now a mentality in India that requires definite action of the kind taken by my right hon. Friend in order to bring about a friendly disposition. I have been very much afraid during recent months that a situation might arise such as existed from 1920 to 1923 or 1924. We all remember how on those occasions the Montagu Reforms were heralded by action which put India into a ferment. Conditions existed which engendered suspicion. We had the Rowlatt inquiries, the Press Acts, the refusal to permit assemblies in various parts of India and the prohibition of Indian people going into certain parts of the country. We had a situation where Indian leaders were put into prison in large numbers, and it was considered one of the most heroic things for a young man of that time to be put in prison. It has taken many years to get out of that condition, but in the last 12 months or so we have found ourselves getting away from it, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has taken such action in India as has prevented a return to the conditions we had from 1920 to 1924.
I welcome this Motion, and particularly that part of it which rejoices at the cooperation that is taking place. I have found from my correspondence during the past few weeks that there is a very marked change in India. The atmosphere has very definitely changed, and I am quite sure in my own mind that the decision of India in the next few days will be such as we in this country are desirous of finding. No reference, I think, has been made in this discussion—and I think I have heard the whole of it—to the part of the Viceroy's Proclamation which deals with the question of Indian States. The Labour Government
has enunciated for the first time a policy which brings India into the ambit of discussion and considers the question of India as a whole, and when this conference meets in London, as I hope it will, with a full representation from India, I hope the whole question, not only of Dominion status, but of bringing the Indian States into the ambit of that discussion, will he realised in a very complete way. If that view of the situation is cleared up the whole possibility of what can be done in India will be laid before us, and we know that nothing will be excluded from the conference, which will meet in the course of next year, or, possibly, the next few months, which concerns the future welfare of India. I hope that India will send to that conference the best representatives she can, and then I am sure we shall obtain better results from that conference than we have succeeded in doing in the past. I am sure that every hon. Member of this House will welcome the statement which has been made this evening by the Secretary of State for India, and we shall look forward to the time when India will send her representative to this country and when we shall be able to enact such laws and establish such relations between this country and India which will have the effect of solving permanently the vexed question which is in our midst to-day.

Miss WILKINSON: I want to raise a matter which has not been raised during this Debate. The discussion to-day has necessarily been confined to constitutional questions, but I think we might appropriately turn our minds to some of the social questions which are affecting India so much to-day. I think it is unfortunate that the health of the people and infant mortality throughout the whole of India has not received greater attention from this Government, and from the whole of the Indian administration. It is very extraordinary that infantile mortality in Bombay amongst the Bombay mill hands is little short of a tragedy and may be described as appalling. That is a terrible state of things, and while we talk about the constitution, it does seem to me important that we should consider these little ones who are dying off like flies. The condition of the mothers in India and the lack of medical attention are not pleasant facts which any Gov-
ernment can contemplate. We have been the governors of India and complete autocrats there for 150 years, and it is a terrible commentary on our rule that in 1929 after 150 years of British rule, this appalling state of affairs should continue. While India is being made the shuttlecock of two opposing factions, and while I am in sympathy with the national aspirations of India, I feel desperately that more ought to be done to bring before the people of India the necessity for doing something more for the women and children.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the evidence of the co-operation of Indian representatives in the settlement of the constitutional question and relies upon the Government of India to encourage goodwill by the sympathetic conduct of its administrative and executive functions, particularly in relation to the expression of political opinion.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, authorising the Farnham Gas and Electricity Company to raise additional capital for electricity purposes, which was presented on the 12th day of November, 1929, be approved."—[Mr. Ponsonby.]

Commander WILLIAMS: On this Order I want to ask two questions. The Order authorises the Farnham Gas and Electricity Company to raise additional capital for electricity purposes, and I do not think it would be just or right that we should pass this Order unless we know exactly how much the existing capital is, and how much additional capital it is proposed to raise. I do not wish to make matters difficult; I feel sure that the purpose is a good one; but I think that the House, on all occasions when additional capital is being raised, should know the amount, and it cannot be of any value to know it unless it also knows what the original capital was.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Ponsonby): When the hon. and gallant Member has had an opportunity of looking carefully through the Order—he will find a copy of it in the Library—he will be able to see in it the particulars that he wants.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is treating the House fairly. When questions are put across the Floor of the House, and a responsible Minister is in charge of an Order of this kind, I do not think I am unfair in saying that the Minister must give his explanation to the House. It is not fair that my hon. and gallant Friend should be referred to some document in the Library. We hope that the hon. Gentleman himself is aware of the contents of the Order, and, if that be so, I think he had better at once, in order to expedite the business, answer my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

Mr. PONSONBY: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I had no intention

of being at all discourteous to the hon. and gallant Member, and, if he raises any objection to this Order, I am quite willing to postpone it.

Sir K. WOOD: This is a very simple matter. Cannot the hon. Gentleman answer my hon. and gallant Friend's question?

Commander WILLIAMS: I accept the personal explanation of the hon. Gentleman that he does not wish to be discourteous, but really I cannot see why he cannot answer two perfectly simple questions which are the business of his Department and which he is paid by the country and the House of Commons to do. I never heard such a scandalous case before, and I am glad that I have raised it, if only to show how entirely lacking every member of this Government is in knowledge of their duty to this House.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 46.

Division No. 110.]
AYES
[11.4 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Edge, Sir William
Longbottom, A. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Edmunds, J. E.
Longden, F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. v. (Hillsbro)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Amnion, Charles George
Elmley, Viscount
Lowth, Thomas


Angell, Norman
Foot, Isaac
Lunn, William


Arnott, John
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Aske, Sir Robert
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Ayles, Walter
Gillett, George M.
McElwee, A.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Glassey, A. E.
McEntee, V. L.


Barnes, Alfred John
Gossling, A. G.
McKinlay, A.


Batey, Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mansfield, W.


Bellamy, Albert
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Marcus, M.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mathers, George


Benson. G.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Matters, L. W.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Messer, Fred


Bowen, J. W.
Haycock, A. W.
Middleton, G.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayes, John Henry
Milner, J.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bromfield, William
Herriotts, J.
Morley, Raiph


Brooke, W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Brothers, M.
Horrabin, J. F.
Mort, D. L.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Muff, G.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Muggerldge, H. T.


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Burgess, F. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Kelly, W. T.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Cameron, A. G.
Kennedy, Thomas
Palin, John Henry


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kinley, J.
Paling, Wilfrid


Chater, Daniel
Kirkwood, D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Compton, Joseph
Lathan, G.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Cowan, D. M.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Pole, Major D. G.


Daggar, George
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Potts, John S.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lawson, John James
Quibell, D. J. K.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Dickson, T.
Leach, W.
Raynes, W. R.


Dukes, C.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Duncan, Charles
Lindley, Fred W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Ede, James Chuter
Logan, David Gilbert
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Romeril, H. G.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Walker, J.


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wallace, H. w.


Rothschild, J. de
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Watkins, F. C.


Rowson, Guy
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wellock, Wilfred


Sanders, W. S.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Sandham, E.
Sorensen, R.
Westwood, Joseph


Scrymgeour, E.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Sexton, James
Stephen, Campbell
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Strauss, G. R.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Sherwood, G. H.
Sullivan, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shield, George William
Sutton, J. E.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Shlels, Dr. Drummond
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shillaker, J. F.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wise, E. F.


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thurtie, Ernest
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Simmons, C. J.
Tinker, John Joseph



Sinkinson, George
Tout, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sitch, Charles H.
Viant, S. P.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.




Whiteley.


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut. -Colonel
Ford, Sir P. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Albery, Irving James
Fremantle, Lieut. -Colonel Francis E.
Skelton, A. N.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gower, Sir Robert
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (L. of Thanet)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. p. H.
Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel Arthur p.
Smithers, Waldron


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Somerset, Thomas


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Butler, R. A.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Thomson, Sir F.


Christie, J. A.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Moore, Lieut. -Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Dairymple-White, Lt. -Col. Sir Godfrey
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Penny, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Captain Austin Hudson and


Ferguson, Sir John
Remer, John R.
Commander Williams.


Fielden, E. B.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.



Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, authorising the Farnham Gas and Electricity Company to raise additional capital for electricity purposes, which was presented on the 12th day of November, 1929, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Godstone, in the county of Surrey, which was presented on the 19th day of November, 1929, be approved."—[Mr. Ponsonby.]

Commander SOUTHBY: Before the House agrees to this Order, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a few questions upon it. Is this the first Order which has been asked for in connection with this undertaking, or has there been a previous one? I should like to know a little more about the position of the undertaking if the hon. Gentleman will enlighten the House on the subject, and in particular I should like to know whether this electricity supply will in-
clude Caterham in its usefulness and activities.

Mr. SMITHERS: This Order really affects my constituency very much indeed. My own house is within a mile and a-half of the boundary of this rural district. There are talks of electricity development along the North Downs, where I happen to live and which adjoins the Godstone Rural District. I notice that in this Order it says "part of the rural district of God-stone," and I should like to know which part of it is affected? Is it the part near my constituency, or is it the part over Oxted and in the other direction?

Mr. EDE: I gave my hon. Friend notice earlier in the evening that having previously accepted his advice to read this Order in the Library I had done so, and that there were one or two points which I desired to raise. I wish to ask my hon. Friend whether we may be assured that in future in submitting these Orders to the House adequate consideration will be given to the way in which they link up with the previous Orders which have been submitted in connection with the same undertaking. His late lamented Majesty King Alfred the Great, in mapping out the parishes in this rural dis-
trict, detached a portion of the parish of Godstone and placed it next to the parish of East Grinstead, with the result that this rural district wanders about over the county of Surrey in a most irregular and sporadic way, to the great detriment of local government within that county. This Order links up with the Order for the urban district of East Grinstead, in the county of Sussex. There can be no greater insult offered to a man of Surrey—I speak as a native of that county—than to link him up with a man of Sussex, because the men of Surrey have an alliterative adjective which they place in front of the word "Sussex," which expresses their quite proper opinion of the men of Sussex.
The serious point that arises is that these various Orders mature so far as their purchase rights are concerned at a fixed date after the granting of the Order. The East Grinstead Order has been in operation for a considerable number of years, and the purchase rights under that Order in respect of East Grinstead, in the County of East Sussex, will mature at a far earlier date than the purchase rights of the extended Order which we are granting to-night. It is desirable, if public control is to be obtained over these undertakings, as was promised by the Minister of Transport the other day, that these Orders should be so drafted as to make the purchase rights synchronise. The granting of this Order is so important for the future development of this district and for the immediate needs of the locality that I shall support the Government in the Division Lobby to-night; but I do want to be assured that before fresh Orders of this kind are brought in—there is another Order relating to another part of this very difficult and scattered rural district that may be in front of us a few nights hence—the points that I have raised will receive consideration in the drafting of the Order.

Mr. PONSONBY: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that the point he has raised is one to which the Minister of Transport attaches great importance. In this particular case I think that some objection was raised to this Order. Unfortunately, the objection has not reached the authorities early enough in the day, otherwise, in view of the procedure, the
points raised by the objectors would have been considered and met, if possible. If the hon. Member for South Shields will inform those who are objecting on the grounds he mentioned, the matter will be reconsidered by the Ministry. There is only one point to which I must take very serious objection, and that was the hon. Member's reference to the inhabitants of Sussex, of which I am one. If I were to express the feelings that we in Sussex have in regard to the people who live in suburban Surrey, I think my hon. Friend would feel that he had better not have mentioned the matter. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) is concerned about his house.

Mr. SMITHERS: No. I am not concerned about my house, but I am concerned about my constituency. I want to know what part of the rural district of Godstone is going to be served by this scheme, and if it is the part that touches the village where I live, and my constituency.

Mr. PONSONBY: The parish of God-stone which is affected, that, I take it is what the hon. Member is interested in, is Purley Downs Road, the parish of St. Paul, which very likely adjoins his estate—

Mr. SMITHERS: On a point of Order. I object very strongly to this being made a personal matter. I have a very small house. I have no estate; and I object to these Socialist points being made against me.

Mr. PONSONBY: I quite understand. I will withdraw the word "estate" and substitute the word "seat." I need not go further into details. I think I have satisfied the hon. Member with regard to this matter.

Sir GEORGE PENNY: The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that objectors did not have sufficient time to lodge their Objections. Will he let us know what notice was given so that they could lodge objections?

Mr. PONSONBY: That is not exactly what I said. The notices were issued in good time for objections to be sent in, but in the particular case mentioned by the hon. Member for South Shields a drafting objection was unfortunately sent in too late.

Mr. REMER: Surely if we pass this Order to-night the opportunity of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will be lost. In view of the fact that there are valid objections which the Parliamentary Secretary himself has admitted ought to be considered, the obvious course is to withdraw this Order. If it is passed, the points which have been brought forward cannot be discussed. I do not know whether it is a good or bad case, but if we pass the Order now there will be no opportunity of discussing it.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: As a representative of a Sussex division, may I say that it is natural for hon. Members opposite to sneer at Sussex because of its political solidity?

Mr. SPEAKER: Sussex is not mentioned in this Order.

Commander WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the County of Sussex in a rather sneering way and surely the representatives of that great county are allowed to rebut it.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: It is really a, very simple matter to reduce the discussion to proper proportions. The real explanation is that the Minister in charge is not equipped with a proper answer to the question.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: The Minister mentioned the county of Sussex and so did an hon. Member opposite. I think I was perfectly entitled to mention the county in reply.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken once.

Commander WILLIAMS: May I draw attention to one point? The Minister never explained why the divisions were made under the Order.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: The Minister told us that a copy of the Order can be found on the table in the Library. Is there more than one copy? A signed copy is always locked away, and it is very inconvenient for Members to see it, and when a Member has got it and is called away to a Division in the House he has to hand it back to the Librarian.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: On a point of Order, and with great respect, Mr. Speaker, I think you were under a misapprehension just now. I was just starting a few observations when I was interrupted. Am I not in order in continuing my observations now? They are strictly relevant to the Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. Member had resumed his seat when he spoke last.

Mr. BALFOUR: The last thing I would wish to do would be consciously to be out of order. I said that the whole difficulty had arisen because the Minister in charge was not in a position to give a simple and explicit answer to the question he was asked. It is well known to the older Members of the House that the procedure in connection with legislation of this kind is clearly laid down, and if the hon. Gentleman had given the simple explanation that all the questions raised by my hon. Friends were fully investigated by the Electricity Commissioners, with the right to further investigation by the Ministry, there would have been no difficulty. Though I am not familiar with the details of this Order, I have no doubt that every possible question has been explored. Listening to the Debate, I came to the conclusion that the difficulty in which the House finds itself arose not because there is any reason why the Order should be delayed and those responsible for it embarrassed, but because the Minister in charge could not explicitly answer the questions raised. That is possibly due to the fact that he has not had sufficient experience on the Front Bench in dealing with these matters. This Order follows the ordinary procedure, and I know of no special reason why it should not be passed.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Godstone, in the county of Surrey, which was presented on the 19th day of November, 1929, be approved.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Before we part with this Bill, I feel bound to make, from this side of the Table, a respectful but none the less firm protest against the circumstances which compel us to enter upon this stage of the Bill after eleven o'clock. I do not say that such a course is unprecedented, but I do say that it is highly exceptional and it is even more exceptional when one reflects that in the case of a large part of the money with which we are dealing, no consideration will have been given to the Estimate by this House at any time other than after eleven o'clock. In respect of about £3,500,000 out of the £5,400,000 comprehended in the Bill, every stage has been taken after eleven o'clock.
As this is the first Consolidated Fund Bill which some hon. Members have put through their hands, I may be permitted to observe that this is not an ordinary Consolidated Fund Bill. In the ordinary way such a Bill covers the supply of all the services of the country and gives wide opportunity for debate, enabling Members to discuss the whole conduct of those services and indeed all administrative matters. In this case the field is more restricted because the subjects comprised in the Bill are limited in character. Limited though they are, they range from such matters as the purchase of pictures for the National Gallery, a grant to the Radium Trust Fund, and a grant to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, to the cost of a county court at Harlesden and of diplomatic buildings at Riga. That is a sufficiently wide field to cover, but I propose to offer some observations only upon the largest item, namely, the £3,500,000 applied for the purpose of filling up the Unemployment Insurance Fund. For the benefit of those who did not take part in the proceedings in Committee, I may say shortly that we there ascertained that this money was necessary because the £3,500,000, added to the £2,500,000 unexpended borrowing powers, making a total of £6,000,000, would be necessary in order to prevent
the Fund from running into deficit before the House met again next year. It was rather an involved subject, but I feel bound to say that personally I am much obliged to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the way in which he explained it. He was perfectly frank with the Committee, and I cannot do better than tell the House exactly the way in which he put it. He said:
The position is this, that if the live register remains at about what it is, this Vote will enable the fund to carry on until about the end of February. A corollary is that, if the live register is more, the fund will not last quite so long. But it will last quite long enough to endure into that part of the Session which begins in January. Unless, however, there is a very considerable fall in the live register, it will not last until the end of the financial year. That is why the Minister of Labour made it clear that there would be need for a further Supplementary Estimate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1929; col. 1157, Vol. 232.]
As the House will have seen, the hon. Member who gave that explanation very fairly said that the whole question of whether this £3,500,000 is too large, is enough, or is too little, depends upon the trend of the live register of unemployment.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): indicated dissent.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Let me put it this way, that the point of exhaustion varies according as the live register increases or decreases.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There are two amounts in question. There is the Fund and its power of meeting its liabilities, and there is the amount which the Exchequer pays into the Fund. During the last Administration there was no additional amount paid in, but the late Government borrowed £12,000,000 in the last year. This amount of £3,500,000 will be paid in order to fulfil the principle adopted in July, the principle of the equal third. The £3,500,000 is not paid as an Estimate in order to make the Fund last till the end of the year, but it is paid in accordance with the principle to which I have alluded.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not going to quarrel over any pernicketty point, but what the hon. Gentleman said was that a corollary was that, if the live register was more, the fund would not
last quite so long. The period at which a further Supplementary Estimate is required, or some means of filling up the gap, at any rate, will vary according as the live register increases or diminishes. We are at one about that, and I only mention it because I want to say that I was really accurate in assuming the hon. Gentleman having now confirmed that assumption, that it is the question of the trend of the live register that matters. He said, quite properly, that the balancing point, the point at which the fund began to go into deficit, was 1,090,000. Perhaps it would be germane to call attention to the fact that, by an error in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that figure appears as 1,900,000, instead of 1,090,000. It is an obvious misprint, but it ought to be corrected for the purpose of the record. Oddly enough, that balancing point is almost precisely the point at which the live register stood on the 3rd June, when the late Government went out of office. The balancing point is 1,090,000 and the live register at that date was 1,200,000. Having regard to the trend of the live register, and its implication with regard to the question whether this money is adequate or not, I feel bound to refer to an answer given yesterday by the Lord Privy Seal. The right hon. Gentleman was asked by my hon, and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) this supplementary question:
Is the Lord Privy Seal satisfied with the results of the schemes, seeing that unemployment figures are rising so rapidly every week?
To that question the Lord Privy Seal made this answer, to which I call the special attention of the House:
I am never satisfied while there is any unemployment. It is quite true that the figures have risen, but it is equally true that they are nearly 200,000 better than they were on 31st December last year."— [OFFICIAL, REPOPT, 17th December, 1929; col. 1174, Vol. 233.]
I have had some experience of dealing with statistics. Twenty-five years ago, in this House, I was in the middle of the Tariff Reform and Free Trade controversy, and I remember how we used to throw statistics at each other. I know something of what can be done with statistics, but never in the course of my experience have I seen such an exhibition of brazen effrontery as this statement of
the Lord Privy Seal. I propose to ask the attention of the House to the facts. I am not dealing with the question whether the right hon. Gentleman's policy is right or wrong, but let the House realise what his statement was. It was that the figures are nearly 200,000 better than they were on 31st December last year. So far as the figures are concerned —and this is why I said what I did about statistics—the statement is perfectly true. In fact, it is rather under the truth. If the Lord Privy Seal had quoted absolutely accurately, he would have said the figure was something like 218,000. What was the implication of that answer, what was what the lawyers call the innuendo which the right hon. Gentleman desired to convey to the House? What he desired to convey was that he was not satisfied with the progress as a whole, but that the results compared favourably with the results of last year. That is the meaning which hon. Members opposite attached to it, because they cheered the statement. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is what they are here for"] My hon. Friend has a curious conception of his duties. It is idle for the Lord Privy Seal to expect to get away with a statement like that.
Let the House apply itself—still considering the question in the light of the trend of the live register—to the actual facts. When you are making comparison, the first essential is that you should compare like with like. Is the comparison made by the Lord Privy Seal a comparison of like with like? It makes no mention of the fact that this year there has come into force the system of de-rating which we introduced. Hon. Members may have their own views on the effects of de-rating on unemployment, and this is not the time or place to argue about it, because time will show whether we were right in our belief that this is a great contribution towards solving—or alleviating, at all events—part of the problem. Time will show, and as time goes on and we are able to build up a volume of testimony from employers and trade unionists hon. Members will be able to judge whether our forecasts were right or wrong. But I do not ask the House to look at the statement of the Lord Privy Seal from that angle. Anyone looking at the figures of the live register over a period of years will see that there are seasonal fluctuations. It tends to grow in the winter, of course,
and to decrease in the summer, and there are also seasonal fluctuations which take place regularly in the weeks before Christmas.
If hon. Members will look at the figures over the past three years they will see that the point I am making is a good one. The hundreds are omitted, for the sake of easy comparison, and I am quoting only millions and thousands. I will take the year 1926. In the week ending 6th December, the number on the live register was 1,506,000; 13th December, 1,410,000; 20th December, 1,309,000. There was a progressive fall. After Christmas came a seasonal rise. On 3rd January the figure had risen to 1,495,000. The same experience is found in 1927: 5th December, 1,149,000; 12th December, 1,125,000; 19th December, 1,100,000. These are the figures for 1928 3rd December, 1,350,000; 10th December, 1,320,000; 17th December, 1,271,000; and on 31st December, the figure mentioned by the Lord Privy Seal, 1,520,000. The figures I have given for each of the three years show regularly a downward trend in the first three weeks of December. In 1926, between 6th and 13th December, the numbers on the live register fell by 96,000. In 1927, between 5th and 12th December, the fall was 24,000. In 1928, between 3rd and 10th December, the fall was 30,000. This year, the figure on 25th November was 1,285,000, on 2nd December, 1,302,000, on 9th December, 1,309,000. This year for the first time, the trend has been reversed. Instead of falling in the first weeks of December, the figures have this year risen. [Interruption.] That is a sufficiently serious matter, but that is not really the gravamen of the charge I am making against the Lord Privy Seal. What I am complaining of is that, knowing these facts, the Lord Privy Seal does not compare like with like. He compares last week, which ought to be one of the lowest weeks, where the curve is lowest before Christmas, with the week after Christmas, when the figure is at its highest. That is a thoroughly vicious comparison, rendered the more vicious when the House remembers that in that particular week last year, namely, 31st December, the whole of the West and South of England was afflicted with the biggest blizzard within living memory. For the Lord Privy Seal to come down and ask the House to believe that he is
making a fair comparison on which the House can form a proper judgment, is one of the greatest examples of political mendacity which I have ever come across.

Captain BOURNE: I do not wish to pursue the subject raised by my right hon. Friend. As this Consolidated Fund Bill covers very few subjects, it gives one the opportunity to put certain questions to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which might not be raised on an ordinary Consolidated Fund Bill covering a much wider range of subjects. I should like to call attention to Clause 1, which makes grants for Supply, and Clause 2, which authorises the Treasury to borrow certain moneys. There is a discrepancy between the amounts which are granted under Supply and the amounts which the Treasury is authorised to borrow. I believe it is due to one Supplementary Estimate which is covered by the Bill, namely, that for the Scottish Board of Health, but I should be very grateful if the Financial Secretary would explain the discrepancy when he comes to reply. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland read a statement on the subject at a- very late hour the other evening, but, although I listened very carefully to every word that he said I must confess that I was still somewhat uncertain on the point. Clause 2 says that the Treasury may borrow by means of Treasury Bills or otherwise, and that the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland may advance such sums. I quite understand that the formula used is that which has been used in Consolidated Fund Bills for a very long time, but in recent years Southern Ireland has become a Free State. I wish to know whether, in point of fact, there is any modern practice which prevents the Bank of Ireland advancing money on Treasury Bills. I do not know whether it is still done, but I do think in view of the alteration in the constitution as between this country and the Irish Free State some explanation should be given.
I wish also to raise the question of the denomination of Treasury Bills. Under the Sub-section in Clause 2 dealing with this matter, Treasury Bills can be issued to be repaid not later than 31st March, 1930. I have looked up the Treasury Bills Act of 1887. I presume the Treasury does not expect that any of the bills which are issued under this Act
will be redeemed much before 31st March, 1930. Therefore, there is no point in regarding any of these bills as re-issued from the point of view of this financial year. I understand that it is the custom of the Treasury to issue bills in denominations of not less than £5,000. Why do not they issue bills in rather smaller denominations! There is no statement in this Bill as to the rate of interest at which the Treasury borrows on Treasury Bills. Sub-section (3) says:
Any money borrowed otherwise than in Treasury Bills shall be paid interest not exceeding £5 per cent. per annum.
I cannot help thinking that, especially on a very short-dated security like this, the Treasury might very easily borrow money at a very much lower rate than 5 per cent. if they issued the bills in much smaller denominations. After all, a very large number of hon. Members have had experience in these matters. A sale takes place, and we are paid, say, 10 per cent. We cannot invest that money in long-term securities, and it has to be put in the deposit banks at a rate of 2½ per cent. There seems to me to be a large number of cases of trustees who want to put money at what I should not call a very short call and who would like to invest in Treasury Bonds and save 3½, per cent. These are excellent securities; and I think that we might do something to relieve the very heavy strain which is placed upon this country and the taxpayers if Treasury Bills were issued in small as well as large denominations.
I do not know why a much smaller sum has not been issued available for those who want to put a small amount on deposit for periods like six months. If the Treasury had done that, it would have been a great convenience, and I think, if the Treasury adopted that course, they would be able to relieve the rate of interest on Treasury Bills. I would like to ask if what is proposed includes borrowings through Ways and Means advances, and, if so, what is the amount outstanding at the present moment? If this means borrowing through Ways and Means, it seems to me that one Department might borrow from one account at 5 per cent. in order to finance another Department. That is one of the things which we have not had an opportunity of discussing, and
therefore some explanation from the Financial Secretary is desirable.

Sir K. WOOD: I share the regret which will he felt in many parts of the House that we have to deal with this Bill at this time of the night. That is not a subject of complaint from this side of the House alone, because political fortunes are uncertain, and hon. Members opposite will find that it is unfortunate that an important Bill of this kind covering many very important subjects is being considered under such adverse circumstances. This is the only opportunity which hon. Members will have of raising the important questions which are covered by this Bill, and it is very unfortunate that we should be obliged to deal with them so late at night. I want to say a word or two in reference to the statement made in regard to the amount of money required under this Bill in respect of unemployment.
12 m.
I was surprised when I heard that statement across the floor of the House, and one might easily go away with a wrong impression of what was the exact state of affairs. I do not think the Lord Privy Seal need apologise or endeavour to put forward anything but the real facts of the case. I have often thought, when I have endeavoured to put myself in his place, that really the only thing he has particularly to apologise for at present is the misrepresentations that were made as to what he and his party would do in reference to this matter, and in that respect he has inherited a very unfortunate legacy, but as regards his methods or that sort of matter, that is not a subject for criticism on my part to-night.
In aid of what my right hon. Friend has said with regard to these figures, I should have thought that in the week that is approaching there ought, if there is any sign of revival at all, to be a very large drop in the unemployment figures, because we are approaching the time when a larger number of people are taken into temporary employment. During the next week or so the General Post Office will be employing a very large amount of additional labour. There will be something very wrong in the existing condition of affairs if the unemployment figures in a week's time do not show a very considerable drop indeed. When you compare the figures with last year,
and remember the great suffering that the country underwent, particularly the unemployed, by the very severe storm of January last, you find that immediately after it there was a very considerable fall. The more you examine the figures, the more unfortunate it is that the Lord Privy Seal should not take the very highest point of employment and compare it with a totally different period of the month. I do not think it was creditable or desirable from the point of view of the office he holds and the efforts he is making.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That seems to me a very serious charge to be made against a Cabinet Minister by an ex-Minister. May I ask you, Sir, if that is not a slanderous remark?

Sir K. WOOD: I chose my words very carefully indeed. The statement which my right hon. Friend has made, and which I have supported, has been simply a statement of the figures as they are, and we are simply relying on those figures to speak for themselves in order to correct what may be a very grave misapprehension caused by the statement of the Lord Privy Seal. I only regret that we are doing it at this time of night in such a small House. I hope the OFFICIAL REPORT will be read and circulated throughout the country.
I want to deal with another matter which has aroused a considerable amount of interest, not only in the House, but outside, in relation to a considerable sum of money for the National Radium Fund. There has been a great deal of interest in connection with this effort in respect of the National Radium Trust. In the time of the last Government, following the report of a very expert and representative Committee, it was decided to form a trust to the maximum of £100,000 for augmenting the supply of radium for use in relation to the treatment of the sick and the advancement of knowledge of the best methods of rendering such treatment. It says a good deal for the national sympathy of large numbers of people that, almost immediately after the "Times" newspaper opened its great appeal, this large sum of money was subscribed, and we are deal-ling with the matter in this Bill because the Government of that day—in this respect the policy has been adopted by the present Government—said that for
every £1 subscribed voluntarily the Government itself would put By that means this very considerable sum of money has been brought together. This is almost the last opportunity we shall have for some time of putting questions about the administration of this fund before we finally pass it in the Bill. A large number of people have looked with the greatest hope, many of them with a good deal of anxiety, to the use to which this fund will be put. I am not questioning the belief that a great deal of good may be accomplished by the use of this large sum of money. I suppose cancer is one of the most terrible diseases that afflict mankind. The use of radium in the treatment of cancer, at any rate in its early stages, is one of the most hopeful methods that we have. To a large extent medical men are able, in many cases, to put the use of the knife on one side and to adopt the use of this almost miraculous substance in order to alleviate and, in early cases, to cure this very dreadful disease. This considerable sum of money has been vested in the hands of specially constituted trustees. I think they have been very carefully chosen, and I have not seen a word of criticism in relation to the men who are serving as trustees of this great fund. The purpose for which the public subscribed this sum of money was very largely to purchase, on behalf of this country, sufficient radium in order, by means of this provision, to make it available to the poorest people in the country. That was the object of the appeal that was made, and, indeed, one of the main reasons why the fund was raised. I admit at once, in putting the question as to what has been done and what purchases of radium have been made, that there is very great difficulty in relation to the purchase of radium in this country at the present time. Not only is the substance very rare, but it is consequently very costly. I understand that the only place to which the trustees can go in order to purchase radium for use in this country is the Belgian Congo. That raises a very important point of view as to the limitations of the trustees. I agree that unless they are very careful they may very well be held up and have to pay a very high price for radium.

Mr. KELLY: Why not go to Canada?

Sir K. WOOD: That is one of the difficulties of the position. It stated in the report upon which this question was largely founded that attempts were being made to find radium in other countries in the world, and hopes were held out that radium might be found in some of the British Dominions. I think that there could be nothing better for mankind, especially mankind suffering from a terrible disease of this nature, if it is possible to find radium in other countries in addition to the one I have mentioned. [ Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will give me their attention for a minute, because this is a matter of considerable importance, and this is the only opportunity that we shall have of discussing it. If the hon. Gentleman who interrupted does not feel any sympathy with, or interest in, the subject he need not stay. I say that it would be one of the finest things in the interests of suffering humanity if radium were discovered in other countries than the one to which I have referred.
I want to know how much money has been expended in the purchase of radium in this country and whether it has been possible to obtain radium in any of our Dominions or in any foreign country other than the Belgian Congo. I do not want anything to be disclosed that should not be disclosed, but if any radium has been purchased on behalf of this country I should like to know whether it has been purchased at such a price as the Trustees think not unreasonable and not unduly high. The danger of the present situation is that we have raised this very large sum of money for this particular purpose and there must be a natural anxiety to obtain for Great Britain a sufficient supply of radium, consequently there must be considerable pressure upon the Trustees to purchase it. I can well understand that when there is only one source of supply from which to make our purchases we may be held up so far as price is concerned. It may be that the Trustees have been able to make other arrangements in regard to securing a sufficient supply of radium without having to make a purchase of the kind to which I have referred, but I do not think that hon. Members will complain that I am raising this matter, even at this late hour, because a very large amount of public interest has been taken in the matter and
a very large sum of money has been subscribed by the public. Moreover, there is natural anxiety on the part of large numbers of people who themselves or some member of their family are afflicted with this disease.
There is scarcely any family in the land which has not been in some shape or form affected because of some relative suffering from a disease of this kind. I hope that we may have some statement from the Government, although it may have to be circulated later, as to how we stand in this matter. The Trustees will have the support of the House and the country, and I feel sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will give us the information at her disposal in order that the House and all those who are interested may have up-to-date information, this being the only occasion on which we can raise the question for some time.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I cannot reply at any length on this question. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Radium Trustees are not appointed by the Ministry of Health but by Royal Charter. Therefore the Ministry of Health is not responsible for the work of the Radium Commission in so direct a way. It is an independent body set up by Parliament, and will present an annual statement and accounts in a short time. In reply to the specific questions which have been put by the right hon. Gentleman, we have agreed to purchase ten grammes of radium at fifty dollars per millegramme from the Union Minerale of Belgium, and we have another four grammes already in our possession, with option to purchase. All the radium has been purchased from the Belgian company.

Mr. MacLAREN: The right. hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) gave the Government a warning from which I hope they will profit. It was that if it was known that it is possible to find radium anywhere in the Colonies the owners of the land would take advantage of the public demand and "spoil the Egyptians." When we use that argument in another connection the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to see it quite so clearly as he does now. His speech was interesting, especially when
he referred to the pathological condition of a cancerous growth, but I was amazed that he was not called to order for ambling into the realm of unemployment. There is one item of expenditure which has not been discussed. Strangely enough I get the feeling that hon. Members opposite have not referred to it because they are responsible for throwing this little debit at our heads. It is a sum of £106,000 to the Trustees of the National Gallery. Nothing has been said about that. [HON. MEMBERS: "We are going to discuss it."] Perhaps my intervention now will allow us to get home early. The responsibility for that little account rests with hon. Members opposite. It is the contribution which the State had to make towards an enormous sum for the purchase of two pictures in the National Gallery. The purchase was made and the money paid before this House was consulted. We were told at the time that the pictures had to be purchased in a secretive manner because, like radium, if the owners of the property got to know that the State were after them the price would have been exorbitant. Despite the fact that the deal was said to have been carried out in a secretive manner, the fact remains that the picture dealers knew all about it and sky-high prices were demanded. Hon. Members opposite are responsible for this amount of money and I am intervening now in order to make sure that no succeeding administration will enter into any more of these secret agreements enabling picture dealers to foist on to the State at exorbitant prices so-called masterpieces. The Canaletto picture is not a masterpiece; and in my opinion is dead now. I hope the present Government will not pursue the same policy. I am told that there are something like half a dozen masterpieces in this country and so terrified are the picture dealers that American connoisseurs may take them out of the country at exorbitant prices that they are hoping that secret negotiations may be commenced between the Government and the sellers in order to keep them for the National Gallery.
I hope that this process will not be adopted, because it is putting the taxpayer's money at the command of a crowd of charlatans in Bond Street and elsewhere. I should like to go into the question of the so-called masterpieces of art foisted on the State at exorbitant
prices, not only in the National Gallery, but also in the municipal galleries of the country. There is only one subject that makes me more afraid to hear politicians discussing than art, and that is the fiduciary issue. Poor politicians who like to talk deliberate nonsense about art are easily taken advantage of. I hope, therefore, that those responsible for the Treasury now will cut short these secret arrangements. If these things come to light again, I shall have something stronger to say than I am saying now. It is a scandal, and I hope that it will stop. It was done in a most unconstitutional manner, and I hope that it will not be pursued. As this is the last opportunity for saying anything on this item, I have said what I have said, not with the same venom as if I thought those responsible for their actions knew what they were doing.

Mr. SKELTON: I propose to speak on another subject, but I cannot leave altogether aside the very interesting remarks of the hon. Member who has just spoken. So far as he is protesting against the unjustifiable prices levied by the middleman in artistic production transactions, I am entirely with him. There is not a single department of trade in this country in which we do not find that this country is a paradise for the middleman and exactly the opposite for the producer. If, on the other hand, the hon. Member is going to raise the large and difficult question of how far the resources of the. State, even in these troublous times, should be devoted to the preservation of great artistic products, I rather fanny that I should be at cross purposes with him. My own view is that these opportunities of getting into permanent safety and the national possession all these great gifts of artistic geniuses of past times are opportunities. that the State cannot afford to miss. Though I am rather inclined to think that his view of an artistic masterpiece is more futuristic than my own, when you have an artistic masterpiece it is worth while spending some of the resources of the State on it.

Mr. SULLIVAN: If you can afford it.

Mr. SKELTON: We have been told from the opposite side of the House that the country can afford anything it wants. The other point is the very interesting question raised by the hon. and gallant
Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), the question of Treasury bonds and bills. If he is right that they are issued only in very large denominations, it would be a question well worth the attention of the Treasury to consider and, if necessary, to alter. I do not suppose that any social change which has occurred since the War is more remarkable than the expansion of the investing public. Before the War those who interested themselves in the investment of capital were restricted to a very narrow class of the community. That investing public has enormously increased, and I venture to suggest that it is worth while the Treasury bringing itself up-to-date and giving that enormously increased investing public the opportunity of investing in Treasury bills and such like securities. To-day, when a large proportion of the population—the size of which we do not fully recognise—is interested in investing, it is of not inconsiderable national importance that they should have the opportunity of investing in comparatively short-term absolutely secure investments of a national sort.
If it was open to them to invest in these short-term Government investments, issued in small denominations, it would raise, in a way that has never been raised before, the question of the ludicrous return given by the Post Office. If you had these Treasury bills issued in amounts of £10 or £50, the Post Office could not continue its vicious policy of returning to the small investor of this country a return of only two-and-a-half per cent. Although this is not the time for a full discussion of the subject, I do most earnestly appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to look at the question from a modern point of view. There are administrative difficulties and, I believe, it is said that if you did do what I propose there would be a collision between these investments and National Savings Certificates. I do not believe that that would be the case, because those who invest in National Savings Certificates are a totally different class. I believe that it is an example of the close  liaison that, even in these democratic days, exists between the Treasury and high finance.

HON. MEMBERS: Speak up.

Mr. SKELTON: Yes, it is an important matter and one on which it is
worth speaking up. In my judgment—and, indeed, times without number I have ventured to say so in this House—one of the main problems in this assembly is in every way to secure the development of a property-owning democracy. The wider and more extensive the relation of the bulk of your people is to property-owning, the more secure are the foundations of your State, and that kind of consideration should not be absent in the financial administration of the Treasury. To give to the small investor a more open opportunity of investing in these short-term investments is another method of arriving at that result. For these reasons, I have risen, and I am glad to have had the opportunity also of saying a word in consonance with the hon. Member on the other side whose artistic skill and interest are well known to the whole House.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I do not want to keep the House very long from the reply of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. [ Interruption.] I am quite prepared to do so. I want to ask him whether, on another occasion, he will adopt the suggestion to make the text of the Bill a little more clearer to hon. Members who have not time to make extensive researches in the Library. The first Clause asks for a grant of supply of £5,416,670. If you look you will find that the total of the Supplementary Estimates for this year is in excess of that sum. The reason is that some of these estimates have already been dealt with, and the Estimate for the Lord Privy Seal's Office does not come in this Bill, because it has not yet passed its Report stage. Therefore, hon. Members must have either very accurate memories or else add up these various figures themselves in order to decide which Estimates are covered.
I put it to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for his consideration that, whereas the main Consolidated Fund Bill of the year covers the great bulk of the ordinary Estimates, when we came to these smaller Bills, it should be done in another form; there should either he a schedule or an explanatory memorandum, pointing out the sum total of the Supplementary Estimates as covered by the sum mentioned in the first Clause of the Bill. That would be very helpful to many hon. Members when these Supplementary Estimates come up for discussion. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-
Belisha), I know, gave notice yesterday that he proposed to raise a question today as to the non-reception of a deputation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that is a matter that is quite out of Order. It was done under a complete misapprehension. It would, therefore, be very helpful if we had this explanation for which I ask.
Hon. Members who are here now, are aware, for example, that the National Gallery Supplementary Estimate is one of those which comes under this Measure. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has gone from the House, as I should have liked to have said a word in reply to his speech.
Other hon. Members will also be aware that the Supplementary Estimate for the National Radium Trust is covered, and the £3,500,000 Supplementary Estimate which we discussed, and on which I had something to say, the night before last. Over and above that, there are still four more Supplementary Estimates covered, on which nothing is said; £500,000 for the Dominion Services, covering the whole question of the Irish Grants Committee; Miscellaneous Local Buildings (Great Britain), and Public Buildings (Overseas), and also Grant to Rating Authorities (Scotland)—a rather technical subject which was explained in some detail the other night. That leaves actually, the Estimates that I have mentioned, plus the Unemployment Insurance Estimate and the Department of Health (Scotland) Estimate, which has already been fully discussed this week. If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would help us in future, we would be grateful, and I would be grateful, personally, if he would explain a purely technical matter as to how it comes about that when you take merely token Votes of £10 they are brought into the total only at that sum. It is hardly necessary to do that.
I want, again, to enter my protest against taking these large financial commitments at this hour of the night. This is the third night this week that this has been done. We had a Supplementary Estimate for £3,500,000, which has to be found by the taxpayer. Although some hon. Members seem to have considerable disregard for the hardship inflicted on the taxpayers, they are, after all, the only representatives of the taxpaying community. We had the Committee stage,
the Report stage, and now we have the Consolidated Fund Bill, Second Reading, after Eleven o'clock. It is incumbent upon those who have any pretence to financial purity to protest. The Financial Secretary himself has the highest credentials in that direction for he has served his apprenticeship to his present office in those Committees which deal with Estimates and public accounts. Il e has now reached the office he holds, and I put it to him that he should exercise his influence so that in future sessions there is no recurrence of this sort of thing.
I wish to answer—if I may presume to do so and in the absence of any representative of the Foreign Office and with only the First Commissioner of Works present—one or two remarks which I had not the opportunity to answer when the Supplementary Estimates were before the House at an earlier stage, arid when it was not possible for me to rise. These remarks concerned the question of legation and embassy houses abroad. it comes within the token vote of £10 and is more especially connected with the legation at Riga. It is within the knowledge of the House that, when we take the main Estimates in Committee and on Report, it is, in fact, impossible to raise any question of detail. Any questions of detail which hon. Members may desire to raise, or to receive information about, have to be raised in Committee on Estimates or in the Public Accounts Committee. As Members of the House are well aware, when Supply does come on, and a Vote is put down, it is always—at least it has been in the last four years, and I do not think the present Government will break the precedent—an important question of policy that is raised. When the Foreign Office Vote is taken you do not begin to discuss salaries and whether there should be a legation here or there. One does not begin to discuss these details, but matters such as Russia, France, and Germany, or any other big matter of major policy. It is only when we are fortunate enough—if I may use the word—to have Supplementary Estimates on small matters that we are able to raise the principle behind the establishment of these buildings. On the Supplementary Estimate for legal buildings we had raised the question whether a county court should be renovated or placed elsewhere.
It was contended that it was very wrong for us to set up an elaborate legation at Riga. I was astonished—having been five years connected with the service—to hear one of my hon. Friends speak of a "palace" at Riga. Those who have travelled abroad know that there have been no palaces raised anywhere for the sum of about £15,000. That is a fantastic use of words. As a matter of fact, those who have travelled the world over have found rather the other thing. I am not encouraging the expenditure of further money at the present stage, but, taken by and large, our missions, embassies and legations are not by any means all of them houses which are adequate to the needs of those who have to work there, or consonant with the dignity of those sent there to represent this country. We can on an occasion like this attract through the channel of a legation the attention of the Office of Works to the many criticisms elaborated time and again by all sorts of trade representatives and others, as well as missions which go to foreign countries. If we can do this, I think we shall have done something to justify this discussion on Riga. The First Commissioner of Works will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he said that in the legation being erected there there will be found an office for the Minister, for the diplomatic staff and commercial staff, and room available for such purposes as a temporary exhibition, for example of anything which the commercial secretary thought might be a good line in order to advertise British goods. They would be placed in glass cases and so on. That, I understand, was to be arranged for at this legation. I hope that will be his policy with regard to all other buildings where he finds it possible so to do. That is my point with regard to the different Capitals in which we have to keep these missions. This is the only opportunity that we have of putting forward such matters. I hope he will not create the  sumum bonum of his work in Hyde Park. He should look for opportunities in Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City, Constantinople and such places to do what he says he is doing with regard to Riga, and concentrate in the mission building all the British activities of the city concerned. It has been tried. The Consul-General in New York tried to bring them together.
I would particularly commend this suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. SPEAKER: The buildings in these places are not provided for in the Consolidated Fund Bill. The only building included in the Consolidated Fund Bill is at Riga.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I was only trying to expatiate upon the principles. If you wish me not to do so I shall naturally bow to your ruling. The funds for Riga, he said, were going to be found on the savings at Washington and Tokio. But I will leave this subject. These problems, after all, are interesting, and hon. Members opposite do not seem to realise that British employés overseas, who have no representatives in this House, have no vote in this House. I myself have served on two of these missions, and we had large staffs in both of them, and they had no opportunity of bringing their views forward in this House. I consider I am entitled to bring them forward on their behalf in order to show the conditions under which these men live and have to work. In many places, and certainly at Washington, where he is seeking to effect savings, the accommodation is poor, and it is in order to direct his attention to that point that I have ventured to intervene in this Debate and trespass upon the attention of the House. The First Commissioner of Works with his very kindly and benevolent attitude towards those who serve under his auspices will perhaps take these matters into account. Having corn-mended this very necessary improvement in the conditions under which so many of our employees work to the attention of the First Commissioner of Works, I would merely ask, in conclusion, that the Financial Secretary—[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank) is quite within his rights on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The trouble is that we are being asked to take this Bill at this extraordinary hour of the night. If those responsible for business had put. it down at a reasonable time of day, am quite sure that hon. Members who are objecting to statements that are being made would have been only too glad to listen to them. It is not my fault that we have to consider the spending of over £5,000,000 of public money at this time
of the morning. As hon. Members are so interested in the remarks that I have been making, I am prepared to amplify them almost indefinitely. I have, as a matter of fact, a great many notes on all sorts of subjects which are raised by these Estimates, but I do not want to take up the time of the House. [ Interruption.] I have always made it a practice of speaking definitely to subjects of which I have personal knowledge. That is why I ventured to intervene in regard to the buildings and legations of this country abroad. I hesitate to embark upon subjects of which I know little, and that is why I have refrained from speaking on the National Gallery, and so on. I do not intend to do so unless hon. Members opposite provoke me sufficiently, but, if they do, I am quite prepared to go into considerable detail concerning every single one of those subjects.
I recognise that in a Second Reading Debate it is only possible for hon. Members to speak once, and this is the only opportunity that I have of once again registering my protest at taking up the time of the House at this hour in the morning, with a Vote of £5,000,000 in connection with the Consolidated Fund Bill. I emphatically register my protest that this is the third night running upon which we have been called upon to deal with a subject like this. I would ask the Financial Secretary to see to it that we are not asked to do this sort of thing again. It is entirely without precedent. A great number of hon. Members cannot be heard on Wednesdays, and that is why the hon. Gentleman has been subjected to the criticism that he might easily have avoided. I also ask him, when he submits a Bill of this kind again, to put forward some memorandum as to details.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: With regard to the point raised by the late Postmaster-General the right hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) and which has been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), it will be agreed by hon. Members in all parts of the House that wherever business can be taken before eleven o'clock it should be taken before that hour everybody in the House understands that this Bill has come on after Eleven o'clock owing to pressure of business—

Sir K. WOOD: Mismanagement.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: This method of dealing with the Consolidated Fund Bill is not unprecedented. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir Kingsley Wood) himself reminded the House of that fact. It was because of exceptional circumstances that it was found necessary to take after Eleven o'clock matters which we all agree it would have been better to take earlier, but I do not wish to stress the point. I will deal with the point about Riga, raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). The hon. and gallant Member 'did not hear quite accurately what has been said. The position is that independently of this Embassy there is a Consul and Consulate in Riga. The building which we are discussing was bought for £15,000, and it will, if necessary, provide a room for a commercial secretary, if such an official is posted there. That is the long and the short of it. One word with regard to the question of unemployment: I do not complain at all of the speeches made, but, of course, in strictness the Vote which is embodied in this Consolidated Fund Bill has nothing whatever to do with the solvency of the fund, or any particular set of figures. This, as I have explained several times, simply embodies the principle, and that is all. There will be an opportunity to review the matter later, and that will be the proper time to raise questions with regard to the live register and the solvency of the fund.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Member will realise that I was objecting to the Lord Privy Seal's figures being taken at their face value.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: All I say is that I do not propose to reply now. These are all the points other than the purely financial ones that I am called upon to answer. T will deal with two points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough, Who criticised the inclusion, in the total, of the token Votes.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I asked about it.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think, if the hon. and gallant Member will consider the matter, he will see that we have no option but to do it. If we had
done it in any other form, we should have been taken to task. The other point raised is one of greater substance. It is as to whether by means of a Schedule or some other words in the Bill reference can be made to the particular Vote covered by the Consolidated Fund Bill. In reply, I will only say that this Bill is in the usual form, but the point will be considered, and, if it be found desirable to make the change which the hon. Member suggests, some such change can be made. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), who asked about the discrepancy in. the particulars in Clause 1 and Clause 2. It is the Vote for the Scottish Grants, and the reason for the discrepancy is simply this. He will remember that there was originally during the late Parliament a Vote taken for the sum of money required for the grant as it was originally proposed. Later it was decided to change the dates for which this sum of money would apply. In order to implement that, it was necessary to take a further Supplementary Estimate. But power to borrow the money had already been taken, and, though it was necessary to pass a fresh Supplementary Estimate, it was not necessary to take borrowing powers for the money for the second time.
The next point raised was with regard to the Bank of Northern Ireland. I am not prepared to say definitely that it will necessarily come in, but there are reserved services with regard to Northern Ireland which do from time to time require the Bank of Ireland to be joined with the Bank of England. The only other point is with regard to Treasury bills. The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford quoted the large sum of Treasury bills. I think the sum was overstated. It is certainly very much smaller than £150,000. But whether the amount should be reduced is a matter that no doubt can and will be considered. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) suggests that the amount of Treasury bills should be brought down to £5 or,£10. If he will bear in mind the kind of thing that Treasury bills are, he will see that any suggestion of that kind is quite outside the bounds of possibility. The point that will be considered is whether there should be some change or not.

Mr. SKELTON: Does the hon. Gentleman think it is possible to bring them within the range of the small investor?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not think Treasury bills are suitable instruments for investors of the small class to which the hon. Member refers. The only other point is about Treasury bills being paid off by the 31st March. That is the end of the financial year, and the assumption is that they will be covered by the revenue of the year.

Commander WILLIAMS: I would like to ask one point of the hon. Lady who represents the Ministry of Health, and that is with regard to radium. At the present time, we are spending vast sums of money on the unemployed, but I believe we are finding very little, if any, radium within the Empire. I believe there is a distinct possibility of finding it in Cornwall, and I would like to ask if the hon. Lady will get into touch with the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the organisation on the unemployed question arid see whether it might not be possible to put forward some scheme of work in that county so that we might endeavour to get a certain amount of radium in this country. The other question with which I wish to deal is the statement of the Financial Secretary of the Treasury that these things come on under exceptional circumstances. Well, the exceptional circumstances are these: It is quite true that you have taken one on other stages of these Supplementary Estimates at a late hour, after Eleven o'clock, and I am raising a formal protest on behalf of a great many of my party that these Estimates have been taken throughout all their stages late at night, and I can only say that the reason is the absolute incompetence of the Government.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Thursday).

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Wednesday, Mr. SPEAKER  adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order,

Adjourned at Twelve Minutes after One o'Clock.